Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 178

Limiting the number of GA nominations per editor
Should the number of concurrent good article nominations be limited to five per user? This limit would decrease wait times and would, albeit marginally, encourage higher quality nominations and more in-depth reviews. This would be more liberal than other nomination limits and is much simpler/easier than a QPQ system, which creates too much of a logistical burden. All current nominations will be grandfathered in. ~ HAL  333  22:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No we just need more reviewers, the annual drive proves that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support such a limit as a long needed reform, with the caveat that prolific reviewers can go over. For instance, if I have ten ga ready articles, I could nominate them and review, say, 15 or 20 nominations. Some of our most prolific reviewers are prolific writers too. And I don’t see a problem with that, really, particularly as their articles are usually pretty easy to review. Yes, we need more reviewers, but unless anyone has a better idea where to get them, I don’t see any way of lowering the backlog that way. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just run the drive twice a year, it knocks 300 or so GANs away. As for QPQ, DYK manages that, it's hardly any burden whatsoever.  It runs the risk of shoddy reviews but then GAN is one pair of eyes (normally) in any case so review quality already varies wildly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 22:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No This idea has failed at FAC, where it has conspicuously not reduced the wait times. Whereas QPQ has proved simple to administer at DYK and would work just as well here where there is also one reviewer per nomination. (The bookkeeping is in the provision at DYK that newcomers get five free nominations before they have to do QPQs, but there's no reason to have such an exemption at GA.) As at DYK, QPQ would not provide all the reviews required, due to second opinions; but the GA drive seems to be very effective.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that you can't nominate additional FACs unless previous have gained significant support. Is that wrong? ~ HAL  333  23:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see. I took "failed" as in this had previously been attempted and discarded. ~ HAL  333  01:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is still there like the small of like a dead possum under the front porch. Raul put it in back in 2004 because he felt that 35 concurrent nominations was way too many. (Today there are 48 nominations in the FAC queue.) Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'm a relative newcomer to GA, and did my first reviews as part of the recent backlog drive. I like the idea of QPQ, but I also like the idea of 5 freebies.  I don't think I could have done a credible job of reviewing had I not experienced the process a few times from the other side first. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No the problem of having too many good articles is one we want to encourage. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 01:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No - having "too many" good article submissions is a good problem to have. If you need to drain a pool and it's draining too slowly, you would use a bigger drainpipe or a more powerful pump, or add more of them. Adding a shutoff to throttle the flow still leaves you with an overfull pool. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No per The squirrel — Ched (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but... The GA nominations have tended to be dominated by a small number of prolific individuals, some of them very valuable contributors, others repeatedly contributing low-quality nominations that clog up the proceedings for everyone else. I think that something should be done to manage the low-quality contributors. But I don't think limiting the current number of nominations is a good solution, particularly to a situation where nominations can and frequently do pile up unreviewed for months on end. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No: the more nominations in the queue, the more reviews are done per day. For instance, I'll make a push to do reviews as part of the drives or every so often to make sure I'm paying forward the reviews people kindly do for me, but I do additional immediate reviews for anything I see that's exciting/really interesting to me (which there may be none or one of out of several hundred nominations). Anyone who is nominating much in excess of what they're reviewing could be contacted politely with the questions: "Have you considered doing some more reviews? Is there any reason you've not been doing so?" Anyone who is both mass nominating and mass reviewing is a great credit, not a hindrance. I also oppose any formal QPQ requirements, as it's not good for reviewer or nominator if someone is out of their depth in reviewing something (either for GA reasons or subject matter reasons). — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No pretty much antithetical to what the 'pedia is about. If the FAC queue is on the full side a little patience is all that is needed. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's time for a snowclose. ~ HAL  333  18:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. But that doesn't mean we don't have an issue with backlogs at GAN.  We need to think of ways to increase the number of reviews being conducted... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've previously suggested a QPQ system but that seemed to get a decent amount of opposition. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Although, I would support a system whereby you are encouraged to review the articles that have been waiting for review for the longest period of time first? So perhaps a 1 month limit, whereby articles cannot be reviewed in the first month of being nominated? This might encourage people to review older articles first? ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 20:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support anything that prevents people from reviewing nominations, I don't see that improving the situation. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I already have a difficult time finding nominations I'm interested enough in to review for an unofficial QPQ. Requiring me to only consider a small subset of the nominations would make it worse. And a strict queue would impose unnecessary delays on even the easy quick-fail cases. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Snow per the above, more good articles than we can handle is a good problem to have. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with editors above that anything that inhibits people from getting articles to GA status, or reviewing what they want to review, is a Bad Thing. We have a problem, but the problem should be addressed by finding more reviewers rather than throttling the creation of GA candidates. I would love to volunteer for this myself, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to give any review proper consideration. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Idea for speedy deletion U6: user pages of users blocked or banned for bad-faith edits
We have many pages that list problem users and categories for Wikipedia sockpuppets and long-term abusers and sometimes one-off spammers who create user pages. I think users that vandalize or spam or anything of the like should have their user pages deleted as not to glorify them. See also Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets. We should not be glorifying these users acting in bad-faith. We should have secret administrative pages (probably on an admin mailing list or on Discord) to allow for admins and trusted users to identify socks. Aasim (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Like usual, feel free to move this to the idea lab if too early for VPPR. Aasim (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * CSD proposals should be at WT:CSD but I don't think we need a real large-scale discussion here. This is a bad idea for multiple reasons. Stuff that is relevant to Wikipedia should stay on Wikipedia (barring privacy concerns). There is nothing "glorifying" about telling the whole world that this person violated the rules to the point that they were banned from editing and it helps users to identify problem editors, especially when they return as socks. Regards So  Why  11:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to SoWhy's points, if their user page is spam it can already be speedily deleted (WP:CSD), if it was created by a user in violation of a block or ban it can be speedily deleted under criterion G5, if they're misusing Wikipedia as a webhost then criterion U5 applies. However, most often user pages of sockpuppets and sockmasters are replaced by a notice that notes this status and (in the case of sockpuppets) who their master is; this does not require deletion so your proposal would fail WP:NEWCSD point 2. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Creating a new CSD to hide things is... not really a good idea. "Secret administrative pages" *shudders* Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 11:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from pages that already qualify for deletion under U5 or G11, I don't see a need to delete userpages of banned or blocked users. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 22:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think to give better context in what I am thinking: Deny recognition CSD. Aasim (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This idea belongs at WP:PERENNIAL. In six years that I've been active at SPI and as a checkuser, I can count on one hand the number of long-term abuse cases I've encountered of a vandal doing it "for the lulz", and we do purposely deal with them as silently as possible to deny recognition. The vast majority, though, are people with a specific agenda, far from vandalism (ethnic nationalists, fringe theory proponents, people who would fit right in at Rightpedia, and such) who try very hard to not be recognized. WP:DENY works in their favour, not ours. In fact we do have "secret administrative pages" in the form of separate, private wikis, for non-public information that helps in detection, but having public LTA pages helps detection and enforcement be a collective task, rather than entirely handled by a handful of active functionaries. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Question to the community: Should Arbcom members be restricted from discussing active cases and participants on forums outside Wikipedia?
IMP: This RfC has been modified subsequent to initial posting; all editors who commented are requested to re-read the RfC for clarity.

Having recently been involved in such an Arbcom case and incident, where one active Arbcom member voting in a case defended his right to discuss active ongoing cases and the participants in those cases on public forums outside Wikipedia, I am requesting the community for their views:


 * Should voting (non-recused) Arbcom members be restricted from discussing active cases and participants in such cases in public, non-WMF affiliated locations while the case is ongoing?

As repeated above, the scope of this request is very limited to the period that the case is active on the Arbcom page. And scope outside Wikipedia is only non-WMF affiliated locations, and not private communication between Arbs or private communication between Arbs and participants/stakeholders relevant to any particular case or Arbs/Functionaries/Clerks IRCs, as broad examples.

On advice from one of the arbitrators, it is clarified that this is intended to be a petition for amending the Arbitration Policy, under Arbitration/Policy. Thanks, Lourdes 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Petition explanation

 * Per Arbitration/Policy: "Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification [...] having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. Please note that as per policy, for this petition to be submitted for ratification, only number of supporting editors would be counted. This section has been added for clarity. Lourdes 17:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Support (Agree)

 * 1) I agree with Ymblanter in the Opposes below that such a gag order is virtually impossible to enforce, but I nevertheless think that it would be useful to have such a restriction in effect, primarily because I believe that the vast majority of Arbitrators are honorable and would voluntarily hold themselves to it without need of a formal enforcement mechanism, but also because any violation of the restriction could then play a part in any subsequent de-Arbing or de-sysopping discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Also I agree that this is not easy to enforce.  However, this can result in situations where the trust in an Arbitrator can be seriously affected, or where the neutrality of the Arbitrator for the active case can be seriously questioned.  As per BMK, any violation of such a restriction could play a part in subsequent de-Arbing, de-sysopping or (at a least) enforced recusal for an active case.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) It's a shame that Arbs should have to be told that this is expected behaviour from them to be honest. While it's not bullet-proof, at the very least it should remind the Arbs to be discreet and take their position seriously.  Failure to comply should result in removal from the committee with immediate effect.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving here from down in the Neutral section. I agree with Beyond My Ken above that the primary value of this restriction would be to make it as clear as possible that arbs are expected to hold themselves to it, and that if an arb does not do so, it will be easier to address that with a restriction like this in effect. ezlev $tlk ctrbs$ 08:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Note:  ezlev $tlk ctrbs$ struck this comment at 17:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC) because this issue has more complexity than I previously realized, and I don't feel fully comfortable with unconditional support for the restriction in its current form.
 * 1) Disappointing that the Arbcom needs reminding that such a fundamental requirement symbolising trust and responsibility is necessary. Arbs should not be discussing cases externally before, during and after. Failure to comply should result in immediate removal. However, I’m concerned that during their tenure Arbs must see a lot of confidential information, as they obviously can’t all be trusted, there needs to be some form of legal requirement to maintain confidentiality. Giano    (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) *I still support with the re-wording, and I’m still incredulous that this hasn’t been a mandatory requirement of an Arb for eternity.  Giano    (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I assumed this was an unspoken rule, and kind of surprised we are having to discuss it. While a case is ACTIVE, it seems obvious they shouldn't discuss it on other public forums simply to maintain the trust in the community, and to keep any discussion or input on the case within the boundaries of enwp.  Like the above, I recognize that it is hard to enforce, but there should be accountability where possible.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I would prefer if it was changed to "should recuse from cases" where they have posted in other public fora before or during a case, and yes that would mean that arbs who had recused in a case were free to discuss it elsewhere. To address Giano's point, I would expect that Arbs have signed some sort of agreement with the WMF re confidential information that they have access to, and any Arb breaking that agreement on or off wiki would one hopes be sanctioned if caught. As for the oppose argument that this is closing a barn door after a recent event, regardless of what you think of that event, surely now is the best time to review these rules?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per the arguments of the supporters above. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) I support the principle, although I'm surprised that this has to be codifed - while I'm aware of recent events, I still would have thought that this should be simply a given. Part of the problem is how the cases are run. The two sides present their evidence and discuss the issues together. We expect arbs to discuss it among themselves, but most evidence for and against is presented openly and discussed openly, with rare (mostly privacy-related) exceptions. What we don't expect is for an arb to take it to another public forum and in effect get input there such that those involved on-wiki are unaware and cannot respond. When the case is over people can discuss it wherever they like, but while it is ongoing, in the interests of transperancy and fairness, the public input should be occuring where it can be seen and commented on by those invovled. - Bilby (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Supporting reluctantly. "Reluctantly" because we already ask way too much of arbs, and because enforcement is tricky. But not discussing an active case or its participants off-wiki seems like a very very low bar. But this needs some clarification. Off-wiki also includes Wikipedia-l, Wikipedia IRC, etc. and I could envision some sort of really boring bit of information that could be helpful in those Wikipedia-adjacent spaces without betraying anyone's trust. Ultimately, context matters a lot. It took some digging to figure out what this was about. I still don't know all the context except to know that it concerns a Wikipedia criticism forum that's also a platform for aggrieved and/or banned editors to harass, insult, and at times dox Wikipedians. Apart from the most mundane clarification imaginable, I don't think there's any appropriate way of discussing participants in a case (open or closed) in that context. Perhaps the better way of dealing with this is with a direct question or request for commitment come election time. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Update: the proposal has been changed since I wrote this, so a little bit of what I said is outdated. Also, since several in the oppose camp seem to be under the impression that the only possible reason someone could support this is because of personal dislike for Beeblebrox or revenge for the RexxS decision, I'll just note that while I've seen the final decision, I didn't follow the case, don't have a strong opinion about it, and have never had an issue with either side here AFAIR. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Per above, and with something like this it should be enough to ask. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Adding per some below, it's Arbcom's job all the time to interpret requests and policy reasonably, and there is no policy written that does not need interpretation, and no request that should be presumed to be in bad faith -- it also naturally seems rather unlikely that Arbcom will be too hard on Arbcom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes? I would have normally thought this was common sense. As to commentary re ARBPOL? I'm not sure I see why an RfC can't function as a petition with at least 100 signatures.   G M G  talk  13:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) I agree that this would be difficult to enforce and would create a gray area regarding exactly when it should apply, but Wikipedia is built on policies which are ambiguous and difficult to enforce. (Ask any ten editors what WP:NOT or WP:NPOV actually mean, and you'll get ten different answers.) Yes, this is a reaction to a single incident, but the very fact that there appear to be current arbitrators who see this obvious serious breach of trust as an issue because it's not explicitly forbidden is a sign that there's a problem here which needs fixing. We have things like Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying […] the arbitration committee as written Wikipedia policy which editors are reasonably going to feel they should follow; yes, Arbitration Committee does have the "you should not disclose sensitive personal information in your communications with us" disclaimer buried in there, but the intent behind that was "we can't guarantee the mailing list archive won't be compromised", not "arbitrators reserve the right to talk about participants on other websites for shits and giggles". &#8209; Iridescent 13:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (responding to ping) I still support the revised wording, or any reasonable variation thereof; the important thing here isn't the exact wording but its spirit ("there are some circumstances when Arbcom discussions should take place in private, but there are never legitimate circumstances in which Arbcom discussions should take place in public anywhere other than on the on-wiki record"). With regards to some of the insinuations being made below, I didn't follow the RexxS case and have no idea if it was fair or not, have always got along fine with Beeblebrox, and would have supported this proposal whiatever circumstances it was proposed under. As per my comments here, "it's good that normal editors and admins engage with Wikipedia's critics, but Arbcom members need to avoid the potential appearance of impropriety and as such it's never appropriate for current arbs to be active on off-wiki criticism sites or to be discussing current cases publicly anywhere other than on-wiki" is something I've held for over 10 years. (This isn't singling out Wikipediocracy or a reheating of the whole WP:BADSITES issue, either; I'd consider it equally unacceptable for a current arb to be publicly tweeting about the participants in a current or recent Arb case.) &#8209; Iridescent 16:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) TLDR: Strongest agree: There's a few opposes that appear primarily based on the notion the community cannot modify ArbCom proceedings - and I don't believe that's true. We elect the arbitrators, we give them the authority that they have, and thus they should make rule changes when a consensus to do so is found. On the subject of WP:NOTBURO, it obviously isn't overly bureaucratic when an arbitrator was just recently discussing arbitration matters off-wiki. Now I didn't see any evidence that this arbitrator said anything "early" or released information that was supposed to be non-public, but as was said by others - if that's what this arbitrator does on a public forum, how many people is he talking to, or being talked at by, in private? Not a bureaucracy applies to everything except arbitration - they are the sole bureaucratic nonsense group on the wiki which editors can go to when non-bureaucratic methods have failed to resolve problems. They're designed to be bureaucratic - and part of why this one arbitrator thought it would be okay to do this is likely because there's no rule against it. I'd like those opposing to state whether they have a problem with arbitrators discussing on off-wiki places (especially those which harass Wikipedia editors) or not - because from what I've read, it seems like many people support the idea that arbitrators shouldn't be doing that - but they aren't supporting making it a rule? There's evidence that this is a current problem, and that it's not going to go away (the arbitrator in question doubled down multiple times) simply by the arbitrator realizing what a piss-poor idea it is to be doing so. Discussion by arbitrators about active or recently closed cases or amendments or enforcement requests should take place only on-wiki, on a WMF run mailing list, or on another WMF run wiki when necessary (ex: meta for things that may need steward involvement). Arbitrators should not comment on outside platforms, including forums, news websites, journalist interviews, etc while a case is ongoing - this should be common sense and I'm appalled that anyone can seriously argue that this shouldn't be implemented - in real life, this would result in recusal and perhaps reprimand - so why is it allowed here? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) per Iridescent. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) How can a person engage in dispute resolution or impartial judgment if they're chitchatting about the case while it's going on, on a public, off-wiki Internet forum? No, an arbitrator shouldn't be hamming it up with banned editors on Wikipediocracy about ongoing parties and cases, or about the losing candidates in the last election, or who lost their bit, or who is about to, etc. If you want to explain your thinking about a case, do it on wiki. Imagine a judge, during a lunch break, goes across the street to the pub and starts talking to his buddies about the case he heard that morning. That would get any judge fired in any jurisdiction. We really shouldn't be tolerating it either. Oh, and Beebs isn't the only Arb (current or former) that does this. Levivich harass/hound 14:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) To be honest, I'm surprised that this needs codifying. It's simply not a good look for members of the Committee to be doing so, and it calls their impartiality into question. The procedural concerns are unconvincing: surely once the number in the "support" column spills over a hundred and they are certified to be in good standing, this RfC would function as a petition as required by policy. Although I agree with WereSpielChequers, I can live with this version instead. It is not too much to ask for Committee members to be a bit more discreet when dealing with cases. If there are discussions to be made publicly for reasons of transparency, Wikipedia is the best place to make them. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't have a strong opinion on the RexxS case, nor am I angry at Beeblebrox. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After reading the revised wording posted by Lourdes, my vote still stands. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree. Not a good practice. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) To help ensure Arbcom's decision and process retain the support of the English Wikipedia community, this change should be made. I'm extremely surprised that this needs to be spelled out in our arbitration policy; I'd like to think that an active arb would have the common sense to realize that they shouldn't be posting in off-wiki forums about active cases. Unfortunately, a current arb's recent actions are quite concerning and prove otherwise. (I haven't followed the RexxS case.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support This isn't about an arb, can we get past that defensive position, this is to clarify about what is going to be the best for any given case, and for our editors facing an arbitration. I've seen some vicious attacks on outside forums which carried over into Wikipedia RfAs for example. The best and safest situation is for Arbs to work among themselves but not to deliberately include others. I assume discretion in arbitrators. Isn't that common sense? As well, there is often shame connected to arbitrations; we are a community that should protect its own members. Talking in other forums before or during an arbitration can be shaming. Why would any one us do that to anyone else? Incivility is often seen as a few swear words or abrasive language, but true incivility is much larger that that. When we damage one of our own, we damage the community as a whole. That is true incivility. (Note to self. Do not check watch list when trying to take a break.) Littleolive oil (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) per Iridescent. — Ched (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support in principle.  I've no objection to group discussions between past and/or current functionaries, and I've no objection to discussions in a group that is both small and private, with an expectation of confidentiality, or at least a reasonable effort to maintain the dignity of the people you're talking about.  But talking about editors "behind their backs", in a forum where anyone can read it if they happen to know to look there, is non-transparent and destructive to the community.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To expand on this: It's not unusual for long-time editors to have annoyed some people.  There are off-wiki attack pages about many of us (e.g., see what a now-banned editor wrote about Gordonofcartoon and me on his personal website).  Sometimes we wear these attacks by outsiders as badges of pride.  But when you're involved in an ArbCom case – regardless of whether you are the accused or the accuser or an uninvolved editor; regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty or somewhere in between – you do not deserve to have the editors who are officially charged with seeing that case through to a conclusion talking about you in public during the case.  I understand that Arbs need a safe place to talk through what they're doing and what they're thinking.  What I'd like the Arbs to understand is this:  A public internet forum is not a safe place.  If you're writing to entertain, then write it now and post your entertaining story when it's completely over.  If you're writing to vent or to otherwise manage your emotions, then keep your writing on your own computer.  And if you're writing because sharing details and personal comments about our community increases your social status in another community – then quit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support This really should go without saying. I see absolutely no benefit to the encyclopedia in arbs discussing cases off wiki, and a lot of potential for harm. Paul August &#9742; 19:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Largely per Iridescent. ARBCOND applies, sure, but there's no harm in specifying what type of conduct is not acceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm not convinced that ArbCom actually needs to put this in writing, and I agree with the concerns that it would be hard to enforce in a fair manner. But I'm putting myself here in order to say that this is something that Arbs should be sensitive to, and they should not need anyone to tell them that. I don't care if an Arb simply participates at Wikipedia-criticism sites. The issue is that you shouldn't say things there that you would not say "to someone's face" on-wiki, and you should be silent about in-progress cases on which you are active. And, after that, I feel like saying "duh". I think it's appalling that this isn't self-evident. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I understand various points that the oppose section editors have placed, and to be candid these have been very educating and provide deeper perspectives to the position of ArbCom members during an active case. The spirit of this proposal is to not just encourage on-wiki discussions by ArbCom members during an active case, but to also re-emphasise that being the highest trusted members at Wikipedia, participating in off-wiki discussions with individuals who may consider this case as purely entertainment value should be at least reconsidered. Coming to the matter of editors mentioning that this is a result of one ArbCom case, the answer is that each ArbCom case presents, principals and remedies that get enshrined for future reference – and each case also provides perspectives to editors like me where improvements perhaps may be explored, off-wiki commentary during case progress by active ArbCom members being one of them. And what is this proposal trying to encourage? Productive discussions with stakeholders to ensure a pragmatic outcome of an ArbCom case? Surely! Providing views, say, on participants' proposals to individuals on outside public forums, esp individuals with no connection to the case? – It would be good to think that over again. I have intended this proposal to be only a reasonable one, and hope this encourages ArbCom to at least suggest to its members to review their off-wiki interactions. I am thankful to the supporters here, who resonate much of what I espouse, but also many of the oppose editors, who support the proposal in spirit but perhaps would be happier with changed wording. The message is well taken by me; quid pro quo, I hope that in future ArbCom cases, the spirit of the message that this proposal intends to forward, would be equally well taken by respective ArbCom members. Please uphold the principals of protecting the dignity of the participants and the high standards of case discussions. Thank you, Lourdes 00:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I've had some concerns about what I've seen already at Wikipediocracy. While, yes, this will not be enforceable when it comes to Arbs using new, unique usernames at offsite venues, I agree with the first comment in this section that Arbs are generally honorable and will self-moderate their impulses.  A rule need not be something that can be enforced with an iron fist to be useful. Otherwise most of our policies would have to be deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (Disagree)

 * 1) I provided there an argument why I think it is an extremely bad idea for an arbitrator to discuss the running cases on outside fora, but I just do not see how this can be enforced.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Not bureacuracy. It seems to me that in this particular case, it is the substance of the comments (and possibly the forum chosen in specific) that was the issue, not the mere existence of off-wiki comments. Arbitrators should be accountable for off-wiki comments they make under any profiles where the connection to their Wikipedia username is public. But preventing any comments as a rule seems like it would have a lot of unintended consequences. If an Arbcom case was getting media attention and an arb was contacted for comment, the rule makes it so that maybe all they can say is "No comment", but I don't see a disadvantage to them giving a generic answer "this is how Arbcom works... this is how arbs are elected... there's a misconception that we're staff but we're volunteers just like the people who write the encyclopedia". And then there's a whole host of situations that you can't really predict in advance where off-wiki comments could be desirable. Too broad a rule for what seems to be one instance of one problem about the content of a message (not its existence). I would maybe support something like "if an arb makes such a comment then they should link to it or copy it onto Wikipedia so vested parties will be aware of it if searching through the arbitrator's contributions". — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) The request for comment is stated in completely neutral terms and, on the face of it, is a reasonable proposal that should be considered. However, being raised at this time, by this editor, in the particular circumstances of the associated case and the nature of the comments attributed to the Arb. concerned, I cannot support this request. There is also an element of knee jerk about it. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)     ..and what about nominators at RfA, involved Admins at ANI/AN and 'Crats in a Crat Chat passing comment off-wiki? Leaky caldron (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)   In light of the timing, the changes to venue and intention of the RfC/petition, I rescind my previous comments. Taking account the comments of others I regret that I now see more of revenge / vindictiveness in this proposal. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Invalid RfC. This is not a valid way to amend ARBPOL (in particular, the section that would be amended is ). No specific wording change is proposed anyway, and this RfC appears to be rashly drafted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More substantively: If you don't want arbs that do something, ask them about it at ACE, and don't vote for the ones that say they'll do what you don't want them to do. Excluding the mention about Lourdes, which was poor judgement and the arb in question has apologised, general offwiki commentary on cases doesn't compromise the Committee or its decision-making. A supporting editor stated I'd like those opposing to state whether they have a problem with arbitrators discussing on off-wiki places: as far as I can see only one arb does this anyway. That arbitrator made clear during their election they would participate on offwiki sites. They were elected anyway, implying that the broader community was okay with that. This is an attempt to create a rule in response to a single uncommon incident, which means it's more likely going to have negative effects than positives in the future.
 * ARBPOL has only been amended two times in its history. The first was a rewrite and change in scope, the second was an amendment to allow the Committee to dismiss arbs. Both amendments came from the Committee, rather than from the community. That doesn't mean the community can't amend it. But if you look at the texts of those two changes, and compare them to this, one can guess why the Committee route tends to work better. No specific wording has been proposed, and the current vague question already has too many holes (per Bilorv etc), and as such should've gone to WP:VPI in the first instance even if this change were a good idea. Exactly what wording change would be submitted for ratification if this RfC did actually pass? It's unclear, indeed, and that's part of why this is a malformed RfC/amendment request. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) ... and Lourdes should WP:DROPTHESTICK. Also Per CrastinatingReader, if you want to change ARBPOL—you do—then follow ARBPOL.  ——  Serial  10:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Bilorv (substantially) and ProcrastinatingReader (procedurally). No such user (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) This is likely unworkable, and is a general rule crafted in response to a single incident involving a single user. There's no pattern of behavior here that suggests that WP:ARBPOL is in need of amendment. There's a real cost to increasing bureaucracy with rules that either cannot be enforced or will be enforced selectively. Furthermore, the complained behavior already falls within WP:ARBCOND (1). Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Ignoring the rights and wrongs of this discussion venue, as long as there is no leaking of privileged information (which should be utterly obvious, and hasn't happened AFAICS), I don't see why it should be any different from the parties involved (or indeed anyone else) discussing the case. Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Serial Number 54129. WP:DROPTHESTICK definitely comes to mind. In general arbcom members are expected to exercise their good judgement and in the overwhelming majority of situations commenting about a pending arbitration case off-wiki is certainly inappropriate. However, creating a formal gag rule is still a bad idea. I can imagine some circumstances, involving some kind of a media inquiry or some significant amount of media publicity affecting a particular case, where a public comment of some kind may in fact be necessary. Arbcom members are elected for a limited term and the best way to hold them accountable is during the next arbcom elections. Nsk92 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) I fail to see the point of this requirement. * Pppery * it has begun...  11:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) This appears to add too much bureaucracy for what it's worth, and I believe per the above comments (though can't say for sure) that this might be out of process for amending the arbitration policy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is very much in process for amending the Arbitration policy. As per Arbitration/Policy, "Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification [...] having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing.". But of course, I appreciate your other comments. Thanks, Lourdes 13:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Lest we establish a new body of policy defining what constitutes commenting outside Wikipedia.  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Would be better to codify this as practice ArbCom members should be expected to follow and use best judgement in, but as others have said, a formal rule sounds like would be heck to enforce (both when and where external public discussion happens, and the difference between a statement "Yes, we have a current case about X but I can't speak to that more" (reasonable expected behavior if asked about a case directly in public) and "Here's all the juicy inside details on case about X." --M asem (t) 13:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This...would probably be more compelling if it wasn't essentially the job of ArbCom to police ArbCom. I'm not sure it's reasonable that they will so badly misinterpret the inention of the community in making such as statement.  G M G  talk  13:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:ARBCOND does make ArbCom as a whole the judge when the conduct of an Arb is at question, but I would assume that this would incorporate community input if the behavior is clearly in a public venue. Obviously if the behavior is something only on private channels, I don't expect the community to be privvy to that until a decision is made. --M asem (t) 16:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide  14:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Should they be barred from sharing private information obtained during the course of the case? Yes. Should there be a gag order barring them from discussing the case entirely? No. I think it is in everyone's best interest if this whole situation was allowed to end. See also the Streisand effect. -- Calidum  14:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) This proposal is aimed at a single arbitrator, Beeblebrox. Lourdes is upset that Beeblebrox mentioned her real-life identity as a public figure on Wikipediocracy which was publicly revealed by Lourdes in some of her old edits (Note: Beeblebrox never mentioned this information onwiki) After Lourdes made a complaint about Beeblebrox bringing this up at the Arbitration Comittee talk page and about Beeblebrox discussing Arbcom cases offwiki Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee as a result of the discussion, the edits were courtesy removed from the logs at her request, but the information had been previously declined to be oversighted, and the edits were public at the time Beeblebrox made his comments. Beeblebrox has apologised, and has stated that he will not bring it up offwiki again. Lourdes is also upset at Beeblebrox for his vote to desysop RexxS in the recent arbitration case. Taking this together, what's obvious is that Lourdes is filing this as a way to get back at Beeblebrox as part of the fallout surrounding RexxS's desysop. Nothing that Beeblebrox has said on Wikipediocracy warrants this kind of action, he did not leak or reveal anything about the arbitration commitee's internal deliberations. This is a clear attempt to forumshop after the Arbitration Committee talkpage discussion went nowhere.Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose As Bilorv said earlier, it's what they say, not whether they say something. I'd be fine in principle with a possible rule stating "Arbs shouldn't talk smack about someone who is currently in an arbitration process", but there needs to be a really compelling reason to try and dictate what a volunteer does outside of Wikipedia Scribolt (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Full English Breakfast.JPG[reply]! :)]]
 * What I see in this RfC is a few members of the community lashing out at Arbcom in any way they can because they were upset by the outcome of a recent case. Let’s not forget that is what motivated this RfC. The case was handled with due process and it is closed. What we have now is a small handful of people attempting to rouse community support for a retaliatory sanction against one arb. Would the filer have initiated this RfC if the Arbcom case involved, say, banning an editor she didn’t like? Let’s please not waste any more of the community’s time with this. OneInStinque (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — OneInStinque (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Architect 134 (talk • contribs).
 * 1) Why don't we just call it the "I'm mad at Beeblebrox" rule and be done with it. This is blatant WP:FORUMSHOP. You don't like something one person did, so now we have to have a sitewide discussion  disguised as a policy proposal after two previous discussion did not lead to me being burned at the stake. I thought we had buried the hatchet here, but I guess not. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) How public is "public"? Would the clerks IRC channel be restricted even if it is Arbs, current clerks, and former clerks? What about Clerks-l which has Arbs, former Arbs, arb clerks and former clerks. What about the functionaries IRC channel or functionaries-l if an Arb has a question about why something was done a decade ago? Wikipedia is filled with mostly-private spaces that could be considered to be too public by some. Also, this is an extended exercise in lashing out at ArbCom for RexxS's desysop. Finally, this is not how you change ArbPol -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 15:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) While I can appreciate the point of view, and indeed agree that in many cases doing this would be a bad idea, it would also cover things which are not a bad idea. For example, on at least two occasions I can think remember I've been involved in discussions IRL with an arbitrator about an ongoing case, where they were getting different perspectives on the case than presented on-wiki (e.g. from editors who don't routinely participate in dispute resolution spaces and drama boards) and getting familiar with the background to areas of the project or topics they aren't familiar with. If you believe an arbitrator has acted inappropriately then there are existing process that should be followed, and indeed the proposer did this immediately before coming here. That the process didn't give you the outcome you wanted does not mean the process is broken. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I understand, and empathize with, the purpose behind this proposal. But the way I say it, this proposal conflates two different things: arbs making inappropriate comments about a case or its participants elsewhere on the Internet, and arbs making unobjectionable (and potentially very helpful and insightful) comments elsewhere on the Internet. Of course, not everyone will agree where that line is, but obviously inappropriate comments (outing, harassment, etc.) can be (and have been) dealt with under existing policies and procedures. Ultimately it is (or at least should be) up to those of us who vote on ArbCom candidates each December to decide how appropriate their commentary is. I don’t want a situation where, if I ask an arb off-site “why are considering banning/desysoping person X when you opposed banning/desysoping person Y, whose behavior was much worse?” they have to respond with “policy prohibits me from answering you until it’s decided.” I understand why people might disagree, but I think such a prohibition would do more harm than good, especially considering we can always vote out anyone who comments irresponsibly on or off Wikipedia. 28bytes (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Unneeded instruction creep. Arbs should follow WP:ARBCOND, everywhere. Beyond that I think we can trust elected committee members to exercise good judgement in how they use off-wiki forums. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) There might be a case to be made for some sort of limitation on arb com members discussing things outside of the wiki-verse, but this very flawed whatever-it-is is not it. Take the time to formulate the question correctly (so it doesn't need so much modification after going live) as well as taking a step back and getting input from folks not pissed off because of one particular case. Frankly, the look here is not good. I'd be happy to support something well thought out that is well formulated .. but not this created-in-anger and needs-continual-modification proposal. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) This proposal, if it was going to amend ARBPOL, should have gone through proper workshopping. I think it's current form, if read in plain language, could cause issues down the line. Arbs are already prohibited from sharing private information. I would encourage them to be particularly careful about marginal information, especially off-wiki. However, I think an absolute prohibition on any discussion (complete gag orders) could cause multiple issues in certain circumstances. I would advise against it. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) This proposal would not only be very hard to enforce, but it would also preclude times when certain information about certain cases involving users might involve information which would be impossible for most editors (revdel'd) or admins (suppressed) to see, an thus, effectively worthless to attempt discussion on-wiki. Regardless, it would be different if it was a guideline instead of a moratorium, something akin to "ARBCOM members are encouraged, but not required, to use on-wiki methods of discussing any active cases or sanctions in their official capacities."  ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 19:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) Per  if anything. Acknowledging that this oppose is somewhat pointless since the RFC morphed into a petition; analogies about piss-ups and breweries spring to mind. Jack Frost (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) Urk. Yes, yes, 'petition'; I expect the horrible botchedness of this entire clusterfuck to prevent anyone from doing anything binding with an absolute minority of support anyway. This is almost a procedural oppose. Every single thing from the acceptance of Case/RexxS on was a horrible mistake on the part of all parties where no one comes out looking good and where many wonderful, respectable members of the Wikipedia community, who I otherwise hold in utmost esteem, tripped over themselves to be the worst version of who they are. I suspect Beeblebrox isn't going to make the same mistake twice. I hope no one else here does either, and I hope in a year we're all back together. Vaticidalprophet 22:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per ProcrastinatingReader. Setting aside the ARBPOL concerns, this seems like pretty clear WP:FORUMSHOPPING, as far as I can tell. In either case, this RfC is fundamentally flawed. If Lourdes really wants to amend ARBPOL, then I strongly recommend workshopping the proposal first at a bare minimum and wording the proposal in a dispassionate manner. Yeah, I know. It's kind of hard to do when you were wronged by the arbitrator in question, but I would say it's an even stronger reason as to why this RfC should be withdrawn. This just reads like a WP:PRAM-esque airing of grievances. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Ridiculous, petty, and likely to be covered in some mainstream media article if y'all are foolish enough to implement it. Think of the optics if nothing else. &rarr; StaniStani 03:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Is this an application of Sub judice to Wikipedia? How would one enforce it? The arbiters discussing by phone or e-mail (on their list or Arbitration Wiki) would also run foul of this provision. I think that in some cases off-wiki discussion in a public forum would be inappropriate, while is other cases it might be beneficial to get unofficial remarks. In the case of really inappropriate posts, it would end up in a de-arbing (by whatever procedure that is possible), and this RfC would be moot. I think more nuance is required here: where comments are inappropriate, what type of comments are inappropriate, and what sort of sanction would apply to an arbiter who runs foul of this.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm remaining neutral on this for pretty much the same reason as Eostrix directly above, and will likely strike this and change my !vote if more detail is provided as they have described. ezlev. talk 07:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC), struck by  ezlev $tlk ctrbs$ 08:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, updated to include your views, without changing much of the intent. The proposal includes discussion of active cases by voting Arbs on public forums, not any other kind of private communication between Arbs and other stakeholders. Thanks, Lourdes  07:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with the general idea that arbs should not gossip about cases they are arbitrating (either on or off wiki). But this needs a lot more thought before we begin to write rules.
 * We also need to differentiate between cases where an Arb is acting IN THEIR ROLE AS AN ARBITRATOR, and cases where an Arb is acting AS AN INVOLVED PARTY in the case. Consider the scenario where an arb is in a dispute with non-arbs... the dispute goes to arbitration... and this arbitration ends up being discussed in outside venues.  In this scenario, the involved arb is not acting as an arbitrator, but as a disputant.  Are we saying that the disputants who are not arbs are free to comment on the case in outside venues (and potentially make accusations about the involved arb), but the disputant who happens to be an arb must remain silent (and so can defend himself/herself or present his/her side of the story)?  That does not sound right.
 * I could see having some sort of sanctionable “gag order” about active ArbCom cases... but surely it should apply to ANYONE involved in the case, whether they are arbs or not. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as written. Being a member of the enwiki arbcom doesn't preclude an editor and a case participant from also being active on other WMF projects where they may have local reasons to discuss each other.  Additionally, a committee member shouldn't be barred from participating in a global discussion of any sort on meta-wiki just becuase there is also a local case. The discussion section below suggests that this part could be changed during implementation, in which case I'm neutral at this time on discussions that could occur on public non-WMF venues. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, what would the remedy/penalty for this be (would someone need to drag the committee member to arbcom)? Would recused committee members be constrained? —  xaosflux  Talk 14:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved out of oppose after the last rewrite. — xaosflux  Talk 16:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Arbs should certainly be discouraged from discussing active cases and participants, but I don't think they need to be strictly forbidden.  I can imagine a few scenarios where this may be necessary; and trying to enforce a prohibition seems problematic at best. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) ArbCom, please get your house in order; loose lips sink ships.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Just to be clear, when you say outside public forums, you're referring to off-Wikipedia discussion boards, and off other Wikipedia channels like Discord and IRC? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Thanks, Lourdes  06:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding 's objection in the "Neutral" section, I did not interpret your proposal to mean to cover Arbitrators talking to each other privately by any means they choose. That would mean their internal discussions, whether by phone, e-mail, mailing list, or carrier pigeon, would not be affected.  Is that how you meant the proposal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you've updated. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks BmK. As updated above, the proposal includes discussion of active cases by voting Arbs on external public forums, not any other kind of private communication between Arbs and other stakeholders. Thanks, Lourdes  07:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sad that such a thing needs to be discussed. I should be clear without restrictions that talking about a case - which implies talking about living persons - outside that case should be handled with utmost care and caution, voluntarily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm having a little trouble with the formatting here. Does Support mean that one supports the concept that arbs should not use outside public forums, or does it mean that one supports the arbs ability to do so? With the question asked being Should Arbcom members be restricted from discussing active cases and participants on public forums outside Wikipedia (that is, till the case is open)?, I just don't understand how the answers can be Support, Oppose, and Neutral. SQL Query me!  08:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Support means agree with restricting Arbs. Oppose means disagree with restricting arbs. I have added these two words for the benefit of readers. Thanks for pointing it out. Lourdes  08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "that is, till the case is open" why is that to be the rule? Obviously this is targeted at me specifically, so I feel like I must ask why this, exactly,is how I am to be restricted? Beeblebrox (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In your case User:Beeblebrox! you should be restricted by not being allowed access to anything remotely confidential. You clearly have not the slightest idea of the behaviour expected of an Arb. Giano    (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I read this is a typo that should be "until the case is closed". Is it not? — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I boldly fixed that, as it seems obvious. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both. Lourdes  10:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There are relevant off-wikipedia forums that it is beneficial for them to be able to discuss (IRC and Discord come to mind). There may well be forums that it is not advisable, but I'm not sure cast-iron rules are wise here. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, reading the details a bit more carefully, I realise I should clarify that this was meant for things like case requests or declined cases. If it's a private case then there's only limited groups they should be talking to, and any truly public forum wouldn't be suitable. There are some edge issues, like discussing the outcomes, mixed cases, information that is available publicly, despite the case being private etc etc etc Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the word 'Wikipedia' is odd. So it's OK for a discussion to take place on the French Wikipedia, say, but not Wikidata or Commons? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, would you suggest any alternative that would capture the point better? The question I have put is purely to assess the broad sense of the community regarding off-site discussions of active cases by voting Arbitrators. One could of course scrutinise each word, but I hope the broad idea of the RfC is clear. Thanks, Lourdes  10:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "The English Wikipedia" would mean only here, on this project. Do you intend to restrict only committee members from referring to an active case in the scope of something larger like a global discussion on meta-wiki? Are you only trying to prevent discussion out side of all public WMF projects? — xaosflux  Talk 11:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Xao. Lourdes  11:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't tell which of my two questions you are responding to. What (if any) non-private venues outside of the English Wikipedia are you wanting to exempt? Some examples: Nowhere; the Meta-Wiki; other shared WMF projects (Commons, Wikidata); other WMF projects (the French Wikitionary). —  xaosflux  Talk 13:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being short on the previous response. To be candid, if this passes, I would leave it to the ArbCom's judgement to decide on this. They understand what is best for them, and in what form this should/should not be ratified. Lourdes  14:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest 'Wikimedia' plus one of 'projects', 'movement', 'Foundation websites', etc. depending on what exactly you are intending. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'm not sure whether now, after the participation of many editors, it would be appropriate to change the wording to, say, Wikimedia projects (given that some others may have voted considering the current wording). Lourdes  14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good to change it, but others may well disagree. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you don't want my advice since you keep trying to convince everyone I'm horrible, but years ago I wrote this essay which details what you should do before and during a policy proposal. Rule number one is to make sure you know what it is you are proposing before going live with the proposal. How to approach issues carefully and considering the details and repercussions is how good policy gets made. Rushing in when you're mad is not. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For someone who just voted to desysop an admin who cared about accessibility, you're certainly trying your hardest to violate WP:LISTGAP. Furthermore, your attacks on the editor who proposed this are not acceptable - and quite frankly it's appalling that you think it appropriate to come cast aspersions against this editor simply for some minor wording problems that were quickly improved by community discussion (below) to capture the intended meaning. You've been digging your hole deeper ever since you were called out for your off-wiki activity - and you're now stooping as low as to make veiled attacks against other editors simply for disagreeing with them. This is certainly conduct unbecoming of an arbitrator - while I'm not suggesting you need to agree, you definitely shouldn't be showing up in discussions that started because of your poor behavior and behaving poorly in those discussions by attacking the people who proposed them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a weird RfC. 1) why is an RfC happening on the AN? 2) this does not seem like a valid way to amend ARBPOL, in particular WP:ARBCOND, and it seems inappropriate to try to impose limitations on arbitrators in a backdoor fashion. So I'm not sure the outcome of this RfC is valid anyway (unless this is the petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing part?). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just wish it to be known that I am not aware of whatever situation prompted this RfC, so my response is not about any specific circumstance, but about the RfC per se. In answer to other objections, the RfC seems to me to be legitimate, and I don't know why an RfC can't be held at WP:AN -- they're certainly held in much less-traveled areas of Wikipedia and held to be enforceable when closed, and it's advertised on WP:CENT, which it good. If the wording is currently a bit vague, this can be fixed if the RfC receives sufficient support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:AN isn't a good forum for this, please move to pretty much anywhere else. — xaosflux  Talk 11:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If nowhere else, WP:VPR. — xaosflux  Talk 11:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Previous changes to ARBPOL are linked from Arbitration/Policy. This should look more like those, probably. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No issue with changing the venue. Let me work it out. Thanks, Lourdes  11:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Lourdes  11:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — xaosflux  Talk 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Just in case anyone reading this doesn't realize, I am an arbitrator - I want to get that disclosure out of the way up top. I had no idea until I reached the discussion that this was intended to be a petition to amend ARBPOL. I thought it was instead an advisory RfC. Since this is intended to be a petition that should be made clear - for instance the opposes don't mean anything. I've opposed ARBPOL amendment petitions before so that's fine but everyone should be clear what is going on here and that is, I feel, very much not the case. I would ask that the wording that this is a petition to amend ARBPOL be made clearer and the people who've participated before this clarification should be told so they may change their participation if they wish. I also suggest the wording of the CENT notification be changed. Second, as worded and read at its most literal it will prevent Arbitrators from using the listserv or ArbWiki for the case. It would prevent drafting arbs from using voice chat with each other when discussing the draft decision or prevent them from conferring with each other via email over a request made to, for example, have an extended word limit. Read slightly less literally it would still prevent arbs from telling clerks to do something related to a case on IRC. All of these limitations would severly impair the ability of the committee to work and seem like unintended consequences from the way this was worded. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Petitioning Arbcom is advising Arbcom. And since by policy: "Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices. Policies are standards all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."  This is often shorthanded to respect the 'sprit of policy'.  So, Arbcom members are already expected to be able to not be absurdist literalists, and avoid being zealous infraction Jerverts.   Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * opening a petition to revise arbpol, which is what is desired here, has a very different impact than advising on community sentiment. And while I think the community elects Arbs who are not Javerts, intent gets washed away with time while the plain language remains with plenty of editors who are perpetually wary of Arbcom and their actions. I think critics and watchdogs have value but it would still be nice to avoid a situation where they rely on the plain language of a policy while others are like "no you have to look at intent." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , What's the worst that could happen? Let's assume this gets in word for word (and that the consensus gathering is it has to be exactly these words), even long before it is ever applied, if the committee wants to tweek, they still have ways to tweek it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For the first time in history the community amendment option is successfully exercised at ArbPol and you think there would be tolerance for ArbCom putting forward tweaks? I don't think that's the case and indeed think it would be easier to try and get reasonable changes made now - as has happened - rather than after the fact. To me this whole process has worked how it should - an idea was put forth, concerns were raised not on the intent of the idea but the wording, the idea was adjusted in light of those concerns, and now the idea can continue to be considered for what it philosophically is trying to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposition has been stated as a question, so it could never go in word for word into policy. And until the close is done, we don't know what the close will say about wording. In consensus, the consensus is not found in the proposition alone, it's found in the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest a simple change in wording that captures the original meaning in my opinion: Should Arbcom members be restricted from discussing active cases and participants in such cases in public, non-WMF affiliated locations while the case is ongoing? - this allows for any WMF-affiliated location to be used (be it meta, a different WMF wiki, list-serv, etc) - and it also allows for the arbitrators to determine in their own best judgement, when private communication is necessary, where such may take place - i.e. it doesn't restrict their private communications amongst each other or between them and parties to cases. I think this is what the original question was designed to ask... but maybe I'm just confused. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with over the wording change. Let me ping  and  on their views., would this wording p roposed by Bechanhimez satisfy your working requirements? Please advise. Also, with respect to the petition, I'll  amend the top and ping all participants, but it would be good to get your comments on the wording before I do that. Thanks,  Lourdes  15:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that revised wording would alleviate my concerns about the ability of the committee to operate and manage cases as is done now (and doesn't appear to be what is intended to be restricted). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I put more in a contingent oppose above. In general, I don't think volunteers that are members of the enwiki arbcom should be saddled with WMF-wide interaction discussion bans on other projects with everyone that is a "participant" in a case here. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of "discussing... participants in such cases" implies discussing the case or related facts with them - not simply interacting with them as a whole - and again, my proposal only applies "off-wiki" completely - thus you don't have a WMF-wide interaction ban with them, you simply have a "don't comment on them at all off wiki while the case is in progress" ban - which should be common sense. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Or else! Assuming this was passed, what would be the expected remedy/penalty for violations? —  xaosflux  Talk 15:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DR. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * yup, that's gonna be fun! — xaosflux  Talk 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * People are already aware that disagreements are sometimes, and sometimes often, not fun. And in the Arbcom area, in particular, it's hard to think of anything most anyone thinks is fun, or fun! -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So I assume the proposed changed wording is okay with you ? To your second query, what is the remedy if an ArbCom member does not follow current policy on expected conduct? Lourdes  15:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't love it, but it is a bit better. Specifically, I think this is overly broad to include any "participant" (as opposed to just "parties"), but if that is the issue to be decided on then so be it. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Act In Haste, Repent At Leisure springs to mind. The RfC was created, modified, relocated and is now being amended by a random group of editors with or without axes to grind. It's being changed from an RfC to a petition now, is it? Wow, what a shambolic way to make decisions. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought I had seen just about everything on Wikipedia, but this really takes the biscuit. We have an arbitrator who posts about a case on a trolling forum because it is not expressly forbidden and another who insists that there is nothing wrong with that. Don't these people have the slightest bit of common sense that would tell them that there is something wrong with that? I'm not pretending to know what should be done about this matter, but I do know that we now have at least two members of the arbitration committee who nobody can trust to behave appropriately in dealing with cases. I hope other more sensible members of that committee will have the guts to come off the fence and say the obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I spent ages, with several edit conflicts, fixing this up but was undone by with an edit summary expecting me to fix things. No, I do not have more time than you, and you shouldn't expect so. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * am I the second arb you refer to in this comment? Because I very much have not insisted that there's nothing wrong with it. I have instead tried to make points about how the intent of this idea could be expressed without hindering the committee and how it can be made clear, under policy, what is happening. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you are not who I was referring to. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A comment directed at no one individual but those opposing as a whole - please seriously reconsider whether you are opposing because of how and by whom this was put forth - or whether you're opposing because you actually think it should be acceptable for this sort of behavior to can occur. I've seen people who oppose such a rule (both on this page and elsewhere) saying that they oppose this because it is "retaliatory" - to which I say that if this is simply when this was recognized, then it doesn't matter. Furthermore, even if the exact wording is not something you agree with, remember that this is just a petition for Arbitrators to change their own policy - it is not set in stone, and wording can be discussed - the arbitrators have final say on their policy anyway, so I'm sure they'll do their best to make sure that it captures the community's guidance while not being ambiguous or restrictive outside of reason. Put simply, please rethink whether you actually are okay with this behavior or not - because many opposes say "this shouldn't be necessary to prevent this", yet apparently it is as multiple arbitrators have either violated this or condoned the same. If that's not proof a rule is necessary to codify what should be common sense, I'm not sure what would be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not opposing because of who proposed it, I am not opposing because of how it was proposed (although that is far from ideal), but I am also not opposing because I think the type of behaviour that Lourdes has alleged Beeblebrox engaged in (and which Beeblebrox has denied engaging in - I haven't looked closely enough to have my own opinion about what happened) is acceptable. I am opposing because it is so poorly worded that it would prohibit an awful lot more than just that sort of behaviour, much of which is, in at least some cases, a Good Thing. Not only would it throw out the baby with the bathwater, it would also throw out the bath and remove the discretion of arbitrators to decide whether the baby, bath and/or bathwater actually should be disposed of in any given situation. Furthermore there are already rules that prohibit arbitrators engaging in the sort of behaviour this proposal is intended to prohibit. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment was directed at people who opposed because of "poor wording" but appeared to support the idea as a whole. It was not directed at any one oppose vote, but at a trend I identified in the oppose votes, where many of them are based solely on specific wording while still agreeing that it's not okay. I think a new RFC/petition may be necessary yes, due to this, but I figured I'd mention this as a comment. I agree with you that there are already rules prohibiting this - but then why are arbitrators not initiating proceedings against the arbitrator who's already violated this? Either they're too unwilling to investigate one of their own (which is another issue), or maybe (AGFing here) they simply don't realize the community considers this behavior unacceptable. In the second case, this proposal here, where even about half the opposes say "yeah, this shouldn't be okay, but this proposal is unnecessary" - which leads to about a 70-75% community consensus behind the idea that it's not okay (including supports) - this should show them that they need to act on it as a violation of the rules they already have in place. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (and others) is the lack of rules the problem here? Arbitration/Policy lays out expectations for committee member behavior already (...Act with integrity and good faith at all times..., if there is a serious question about such behavior that the current process incapable of dealing with it? — xaosflux  Talk 15:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think that it's the lack of rules that is the problem, but a complete lack of moral compass amongst certain people [in a certain person] who have [has] been elected to pass judgment on us. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a serious question about such behavior and the current process' ability to deal with it - the current process of arbitrators being unilaterally enabled to decide what is "with integrity and good faith" has obviously failed, since even among oppose !votes many of them express that the act is unacceptable, but this proposal doesn't float their boat. From my reading, at least 70% of people commenting are against arbitrators participating in off-wiki discussion of current cases that they haven't recused from - with varying levels of exception. Not to mention that the arbitrator who spawned all this commented here with basically a this would be hard to enforce, so don't even make it a rule (so I can keep violating the unwritten rule). Not a single arbitrator has proposed a motion, admonishment, or removal of that arbitrator from the committee. As such, it's clear that ArbCom itself is incapable of interpreting "integrity and good faith" as the community wishes them to - because it's clear already that while this exact proposal/wording isn't fully supported, that a decent majority believes that arbitrators should generally not be commenting on active cases off-wiki. So yes, until/unless ArbCom decides to "police its own" and provides public indication they are doing so, this is necessary. Note that I don't personally care what happened in the RexxS case, as that's a separate issue - but the arbitrator(s) actions during and after that case have brought this issue to light. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * has anyone started WP:DR (even by skipping all the way to the end) against a committee member that they think has violated arbcom policy? — xaosflux  Talk 18:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , the community cannot remove arbitrators, only the arbitrators can. Multiple people have attempted to engage the arbitrator in question - he has doubled down on "I did nothing wrong" and even ventured into violations of WP:NPA against those who are attempting to tell him he is in the wrong. I am curious what steps other than explicitly requesting ArbCom make this explicitly clear in their policy you think have been skipped? Other noticeboards cannot do anything to remove an arbitrator from their position. To be quite blunt, if ArbCom would step up and initiate a motion to remove or suspend the arbitrator in question, this would be moot for now. That is, until this or another arbitrator thinks it's "acting with integrity" to participate in troll/harassment sites and to discuss active cases they are participating in. That's not integrity in anyone's definition. Sure it's hard to police, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what is obvious and blatant. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * community members should be able to initiate an arbitration case against an arbitrator as a party to force the issue. If it is a bona fide complaint and the committee declines the case, it should be with a reason why it can actually be handled elsewhere. — xaosflux  Talk 19:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, they can do such, but the Committee should also, per their own procedures, be doing this themselves. I suspect that nobody wants to file an arbitration case if the committee should (and might) decide to take action on their own prerogative. Furthermore, this proposal ensures that, even if a case is necessary this time, the arbitrators have encoded in their policies that this sort of behavior is not "integrity and good faith", thus they will never again have to wait for a case to be brought. If you're seriously suggesting that an arbitrator should get away with gross violations of integrity and neutrality by participating in an active case while discussing it with a forum including banned editors - just because nobody has the balls to file an arbitration case against a sitting arbitrator, then that's crazy imo. Nobody wants to have to go through a case - it is a last resort - and I think trying to clarify the arbitration policy (or convince them to take action under current policy) is a last step prior to arbitration itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a hidden ping to previously commenting editors to inform each one of them that post their comment on this RfC, the original wordings have undergone a change. Importantly, the previously placed question – "Should Arbcom members be restricted from discussing active cases and participants on public forums outside Wikipedia (that is, till the case is closed)?" – has undergone a change. Requesting your eyes on the top once again for your review. Thank you for your consideration. Lourdes  15:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * When you change existing wording like that, it may be somewhat more clear if you srike the previous text and underline the new text .  G M G  talk  16:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right GMG. The issue is, new editors may just get confused seeing significant strikes. I have added the previous query to the hidden ping statement. Apologies for this quick-fix. Lourdes  16:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

convenience break

 * I'd like to present a hypothetical scenario for consideration. Let us assume this already passed, and also that I had not recused from the current case request. Now let's say I were to post on one of the Reddit forums dedicated to Wikipedia the following "I was surprised at the sudden accusations of racism". No private info, no personal attacks, just my honest reaction to a weird aspect of a case. By the wording of this rule, I would have broken policy by saying that, but only because I said it where I said it, not because there is anything else at all wrong with it. Is that really something we want to start doing? Who is going to police every single off-wiki forum to make sure no arbs are commenting in any of them in a manner that goes against this gag order? What are the penalties if the gag order is breached? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Geez, so because you feel it’d be hard to enforce it shouldn’t be a policy? That’s the complete opposite of acting if integrity - you basically just said “well it’d be difficult to monitor so I can do it!” Absurd. You really need to step back and see that even about half of the opposes here say this is inappropriate behavior for an arbitrator - making it around 70-80% of the community as a whole. Please stop digging and attacking others for attempting to codify what should be common sense - but apparently not your common sense, just everyone else’s. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "attempting to codify what should be common sense" this is why WP:BURO exists. Beeblebrox is asking on-point questions because this is the sort of crap that will happen if this is codified. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OMG I expect arbs to know what discretion is without having the community explain it to them. Ideally arbs who have trouble understanding what discretion is would just resign, and ideally other arbs would encourage them to do so. I would have stayed out of this until I saw that you are still talking about this RFC on WO. It's like a bad addiction to gossip. Stop doing this ffs. Levivich harass/hound 16:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that this is a half-baked, dangerous proposal with significant risk of needless drama, for little benefit. I also wasn't aware that the gag order has now been expanded (in your mind at least) to include policy proposals. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That you're referring to the concept of exercising some basic discretion as a "gag order"... I'm embarrassed that I voted for you. Levivich harass/hound 18:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the point is that this proposal would remove a lot of discretion arbs currently have. Whether it was or was exercised correctly in any given instance is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Look, I've heard what people have said. I told Lourdes that I understood her concern and would not make further comments of that nature. So I was a little surprised to see this after that. I am open to criticism, I'm very aware I am not a perfect person. And, should I decide to run again, if this incident tanks my candidacy, so be it. That's fair. But this .... I don't think anyone even knows what this even is at this point, but it was clearly not well thought out before being proposed. Knee-jerk rule making is particularly prone to unintended consequences. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope it doesn't get so far that we have to find out. The current gig is a joke: started off at AN, now at VPP; started off as an RfC and is now a petition (or is it the other way round?!); started off saying one thing, now says another. Etc. And that's before getting into the weeds of the RexxS context. Still, at least the planning matches the execution.  ——  Serial  16:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I sort of asked this in my !vote above... but it is worth asking again: Why is this focused purely on Arbitrators?  Why not simply say that ANYONE involved in an ongoing ArbCom case (whether they be arbs, disputants, involved editors, etc) should not discuss it outside of approved channels? Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar, I think that the distinction is primarily about the power imbalance. You wouldn't want a real-world judge live-tweeting about witnesses that appear in a courtroom, or a professional arbitrator gossiping about a divorcing couple on a social media site.  That kind of behavior doesn't show respect for either the participants or the process.  Editors don't want ArbCom members to treat them disrespectfully when they feel like they're involved in a high-stakes, emotionally charged ArbCom case, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not want ANYONE involved in an active court case live tweeting about it. Not the judge, not the disputants, not the lawyers... no one. Blueboar (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also asked about this in my Oppose vote (≠3). What about any involved functionary participating in any formal setting, RfA, 'Crat Chat, AN/ANI? They also contribute at WO. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A more general WP:DECORUM guideline would make more sense than this narrowly-tailored change, which feels half like a vote to admonish Beeblebrox. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 18:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Half? Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that Lourdes has "clarified" things for us; this is now both an RfC (requiring a ~two-thirds majority in favour) and a petition (requiring a 100 supports and ignoring opposes). I think we're through the looking glass, people... ——  Serial  18:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On reflection, no, I don't think it's quite as clear cut as Lourdes suggests (perhaps unsurprisingly, as they only highlighted one sentence). It does seem odd, doesn't it, at first glance, that arb com—of all people on the English Wikipedia!—would renounce WP:CONSENSUS in favour of brown numbers, and a careful read of ARBPOL supports this interpretation. The first paragraph states: this policy will undergo formal ratification through a community referendum and will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it(my emph); that makes it clear that the 100 supports must be a majority, not 100 supports regardless of total !vote. Regarding proceedings such as this, it is clear that Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Then comes the line that Lourdes quotes above; but it is clearly intended to be read as continuing the procedure as laid out originally.TL;DR: So yeah, consensus still rulez OK, people. ——  Serial  18:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Except this is the first part of a two part process. This is attempting to see if 100 users request the change. Once that happens we have a ratification vote where there is a simple majority approval with at least 100 editors in support. So in that second step opposes would matter but for now we're just seeing if it can get 100 signatures. So the people opposing here are doing so more under "moral oppose" grounds than to actually haven effect. Personally I think the amendment process needs some cleanup - for instance I think there should be time limits so we don't get a Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution situation but have also been of the opinion that it can wait until the next time ARBPOL needs to be amended for something else. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm seriously, honestly trying to parse this out. As worded, an active arb could go over to say, Meta, and post about an ongoing case, say some general remark like "this case is not going the way I thought it would." That's allowed, because it's a WMF site. If that same arb were to go make that exact same comment on reddit, that's not allowed, because it is not a WMF site. If the arb in question is recused for any reason, they can go ahead and say the same comment anywhere they like. I'd honestly like to know why an anodyne comment like that is somehow harmful when posted in one place, but not in another, harmful when active, but not when recused. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. You're "seriously, honestly trying to parse this out" yet you've spent the last few days attacking anyone who is trying to explain it. I'm glad you've finally came to the realization that you should be listening and discussing instead of defending. That being said, it's simple: appearances. Wikipedia editors can be expected to have a relatively decent knowledge of the fact that there may be other projects other than the English Wikipedia, and discussing pertinent information to a case on another WMF project is in the spirit of cross-collaboration - for example, cases which have evidence of cross-wiki abuse or would require steward input (removal of bureaucrat, for example). It's not that the comment itself becomes harmful if posted off-wiki, but Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to look off-wiki to find an arbitrator's comments on a case. You signed up to be an arbitrator to serve the community - and part of that is appearing impartial and with "integrity and good faith". If you have opinions that you wish to make off wiki and you don't even let people know on wiki that you're making those comments, it appears very highly that you're either trying to hide something, or have conversations that are not permissible on wiki for whatever reason. I didn't say you are doing either of those, but that is exactly what it appears like. Let's ask you this - point blank - why did you post each post at that forum that you did, instead of holding discussion onwiki? If the answer is because the person you responded to was banned, you shouldn't be discussing your opinions on cases with banned users off wiki and if you have to ask "why not", you shouldn't be an arbitrator. If the answer is because "it was easier", well tough, tell them to come on wiki to discuss the active case with you in the interest of full transparency and record keeping. You have an extra burden to bear as an arbitrator active on a case - you are the judge of someone - and doing things like this seriously calls into question your "integrity and good faith" - even if you don't discuss any private information or remedies specifically. I count a couple dozen users who have at this point said this should be common sense - so I'm sorry, but if you don't get it at this point maybe it's time to step back and reconsider whether you understand what being an arbitrator entails - since you seem to forget that you should be the pinnacle of integrity and transparency if at all possible - which posting off-wiki doesn't provide. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually,, I think it now makes even less sense. Some of Lourdes' comments (and others') (eg ) seem to imply some editors think this is going to the Committee who will then draft up a wording and propose it for ratification, but surely that's not what this is? Despite the edits to this proposal, it still feels like the proponents don't really know exactly what they're asking for. appears to describe the process for amending the policy. I imagine the community process works something like this: rather than the ArbCom motion method, a specific change (like this) is proposed and at least 100 editors must support that change. That change is then submitted for community (not ArbCom) ratification, which must receive at least 100 supports and a simple majority of supports. But since there's no actual change proposed here, how exactly are we meant to ratify a question? (unless Lourdes expects the RfC closer to write up the text for the change?) And then there's the issues of clarifying niche cases, and deciding what enforcement should be expected (should removal of arbs be invoked for breaches). It doesn't seem like everyone is on the same page with regards to the details here. For amending something as 'professional' and well documented as ArbCom, this whole section has devolved into a bit of a clusterfuck. I'd be surprised if anything productive comes from it, and even if it does it would be far more productive (and time efficient) to withdraw and workshop up a clearer change which addresses the questions/concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After 17 years editing here, I’m amazed that this debate is even necessary, I always assumed this was a rule. Arbs, their clerks or anyone connected to them should not be discussing any case before, during or after anywhere but on Wikipedia. Any other site (even bona fide associated projects and sites) should be completely off limits for such gossip because once such subjects leave Wikipedia, scurrilous gossip is all it is, and it benefits no one. To be respected and for the Arbitration system to work, Arbs have to be like Caesar’s wife, if that’s too much of a struggle for them, then they need reminding the position is voluntary. Giano    (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the earlier discussion on this topic: The default assumption is that editors can fully participate in the English Wikipedia community solely through engagement on this website. I think all editors need to be wary of contributing on other venues, including mailing lists, IRC channels, and other websites (including other Wikimedia Foundation websites), in a manner that affects this default assumption. If significant insight, influence, discussion, or other advantages can only be gained by participating elsewhere, I feel this increases the demand on time and access being requested of the community. I don't know if this needs to be written in policy, but I personally think it would be better to avoid changing the baseline for participation. isaacl (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think excessively pushing for a code of silence helps the project or contributors. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 20:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In my previous comments, I said that in real life, people discuss things in all sorts of places, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nonetheless, I feel editors should be aware of the potential effect of increasing the number of required venues for engagement in order to be full participants in English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The general principle that has been espoused - arbitrators should act with professionalism and discretion - is critical but the current proposal is flawed in many ways that are certain to make it unsuccessful. If this is revisited in the future, I strongly recommend focusing not on the venue(s) in which we expect arbitrators to be able to discuss active cases but a broader principle of limiting discussions to venues, participants, and topics that are necessary and appropriate for the respectful advancement of the case. Or something along those lines that permit arbitrators to exercise discretion but make clear the parameters and principles that should be involved in their decision. We are all volunteers here but that does not mean we should expect or welcome unprofessional behavior, especially from those in positions of heightened trust and authority. ElKevbo (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators must be cautious and discreet in discussing any arbitration business and especially so when pending matters are involved. If anyone thinks a reminder of this precept would be helpful, this discussion (which the Committee members are aware of) has provided it. A formal policy amendment is not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , your statement is more than enough for me. We can close this RfC/policy amendment here. Thank you for this. Warmly, Lourdes 04:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

What should the thanks confirmation be like?
What should the message and interface that pop up when you click "thank" on a diff or history be like? On the talk page of Help:Notifications/Thanks, it was suggested that rewording the message and adding a link to the help page would make it less confusing. So we have:


 * Status quo: Publicly send thanks? Thank Cancel
 * Option A: Send thanks? Thank Cancel Help
 * Option B: Send thanks (help)? Thank Cancel

See here for the preliminary discussion (whose participants I'll notify). Note this has no binding force and there's no guarantee the result will be acted upon; it's just an informal poll to see if a change is due. Nardog (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC) In all seriousness, the link would probably be helpful. Second choice is status quo. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A or B, preferably A. While it is the case that the thanks are logged, the word "publicly" is highly misleading since only who thanked whom when, not even for which edit or on which page, is public, and only if one goes to Special:Log, which no casual user would even know the existence of. The following from the discussion illustrate the demand for the change. Diegodlh said: Pdebee said:  Removing "publicly" will eradicate such confusion, and adding the help link will help newcomers know what the function does and hesitate less to use it, which will lead to increased editor retention if these studies are to be believed. Nardog (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support change, preferably A - I’ve always thought the ‘publicly’ wording doesn’t really match up with reality. ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 08:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support change, preferably A - Thank you for considering this effort; if implemented, your solution should prove less confusing. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 10:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: First off, I would have preferred the three given options to be given similar labels, i.e. Options A, B, and C instead of the cumbersome "Status Quo", making A and B more attractive simply to type. Secondly, the help page is considerably improved since the original discussion back in 2019 (if I may say so myself). The original discussion hones in on the word "publicly" and what that means. Go read the help page, I hope you will find it much more instructive than back in the day. Finally, here are the relevant issues I raised in the original discussion that never got addressed really: a) "Thank" and Cancel" should be buttons not links - they execute commands, they don't take you to new pages. This would make it easier to distinguish a help link. b) the help page is for the entire Thanks fuction, not merely to answer questions on "publicly" which suggests Option B as the more logical placement. c) As I understand PrimeHunter's argument (in the earlier discussion) option A requires developer intervention while option B can be done by only tweaking system messages. d) the degree of "publicness" of your given thanks is debatable - see the earlier discussion. Just so we make a change for the right reasons. CapnZapp (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To that end, here's an alternate poll:
 * Option A: Publicly send thanks? Thank Cancel
 * Option B: Send thanks? Thank Cancel Help
 * Option C: Send thanks (help)? Thank Cancel
 * Option D: Send thanks (help)?
 * CapnZapp (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're throwing a monkey wrench in the middle of this discussion. Overriding the options when others have already participated will all but confuse people, and Option D isn't even comparable to the others! We can call the status quo "Option 0" if we want, and I don't mind you or anyone adding to the options (as long as it's a change on the equal level). Nardog (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I brought up the button/link issue in the 2019 discussion. Don't dismiss my reminder as if I had a chance to give my input any sooner, but blew it. (If you feel there is a better place where I should have brought up this directly-relevant-to-the-topic issue, you will have to tell me where) CapnZapp (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * while option B can be done by only tweaking system messages That turned out not to be the case. See Xaosflux's comments. Both A and B require "developer intervention" (though B is easier).
 * Okay, thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * the help page is for the entire Thanks fuction, not merely to answer questions on "publicly" which suggests Option B as the more logical placement I don't follow this argument. What part of Option A suggests it's "merely to answer questions on 'publicly (when the word does not even appear in it)?
 * buttons not links That would require even more of a drastic change than Option A. For now let's focus on what is within our reach (which both A and B are). You can request that change separately.
 * the degree of "publicness" of your given thanks is debatable Um... so? Are you disputing my characterization ("only who thanked whom when, not even for which edit or on which page, is public")? Nardog (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See technical notes at T229168 for software changes that would be required upstream. — xaosflux  Talk 12:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * isn't option B already possible? Can't we just create MediaWiki:thanks-confirmation2 with the content " Publicly thanks? (help)
 * no, as the interface message does not support links (see the example here on testwiki). Enabling this would require a software change, I think this discussion is to help gather support to lobby for such change to be enabled. — xaosflux  Talk 12:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Indeed, that’s a problem. Shouldn’t the function that renders messages parse wikitext? For example in the FlaggedRevs page the standard msg functions are used and that template has wikitext working. Looking at the source for thanks, the message is rendered using JS (using mw.msg) . Presumably this function doesn’t support wikitext? Is there an alternate JS function that does? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Did some digging. See here. If mw.message.parse is used instead, it should parse the wikitext, right? So should be a quick change? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this also needs to change. I'm realizing Option A might actually be easier. Either way it's going to involve a change to jquery.confirmable.js. .parse could raise XSS concerns, so it can be tricky. Nardog (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, a minor change there. What XSS concerns? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Prefer Option B. The interface usually has (help) in brackets after the text, before the action, I think. For example the editnotice here about pending changes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Status quo. It's important to note that thanks are public, not private (anyone can look at the thanks log), and it's good to keep consistency with other wikis (Wikidata, Commons, etc.). Having the help link always visible isn't particularly helpful, it's one more link to mis-click on, and if you don't know what 'thanks' is then you can easily find out (just google 'wiki thanks'). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposal will require a software change, so it will be "consistent with other wikis", with the link by default pointing to mw:Special:MyLanguage/Help:Notifications/Thanks (cf. the "OOjs UI icon helpNotice-ltr.svg Help" links seen in many parts of MW). Nardog (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So this should be a cross-wiki proposal, perhaps on meta, or the output is a suggestion to the developers? Enwp can't decide on its own to change MediaWiki's default config. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the latter. As I said at the beginning, this is just to get a grasp of how many people would think it's an improvement. T229168 has already been marked as "patch welcome", but I fear they wouldn't accept my patch right off if there wasn't "any research saying this will be a positive improvement", as they put it. Nardog (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * comment I think requiring a confirmation at all is unnecessary. "Thank" should be a one-and-done click. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I recall, several people expressed concerns about warning users that thanks were publicly logged. Thus at present I support keeping the current message, and adding a help link to explain the thank you notification mechanism. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support change, preferably B—the information about it being public is unnecessary and confusing, especially considering that almost everything is public on Wikipedia. When I was just starting on WP, I didn't thank people for a while, because I assumed the weirdly phrased/ambiguous "Publicly send thanks" would be an automated talk page post or something. Aza24 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Status quo regarding the word 'publicly', per Isaacl et al. No comment on the rest. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Status quo Really? This is even worth discussing?   GenQuest  "scribble" 18:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite. The "thanks" feature is simply a frippery to make us look like a social media site, not anything that should exercise our brain cells, which should be used to improve the encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Status quo Total non-issue. ~ HAL  333  02:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Status quo I'd support option A or B but the help link is unnecessary imo. Just "Send thanks? Thank Cancel" would be fine. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support change, preferably B I have always thought this was confusing. You get there by clicking on "thank", and then you are asked if you want to "Publicly send thanks" sort of implying there is a private alternative. I'd even be OK with no confirmation on this one at all. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 18:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Status quo. The wording was changed for a reason.  I sent an entire years worth of thanks into the bit bucket because the old query (which is closer to A/B above) made it sound like "you're sending thanks, do you want it to be public or private?"  I of course just wanted the person I was thanking to be thanked, so clicked on the private option, which was really the "discard sending thanks at all" option.  It's important to make clear that thanks are public, and there's no other option, so the status quo wording is fine.  SnowFire (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Status quo, plus the "Help" link from option A. "Publicly" is there for a reason; people need to understand that they are not engaging in private communication. However, a link to the Help page about this function cannot possibly be a bad idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Status quo. People should know that the thank actions are publicly recorded and the log can be viewed by anyone. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Option B. It is the most superior option.
 * Status quo: the fact that it's not obviously public is more reason to highlight this fact. If you thank somebody then someone can often work out for what edit based on the context of the date. Not my favourite technical process but there are cases where you might feel uncomfortable publicly endorsing a statement, and you need to know that "thanks" is not the private thanks-for-writing-this you would otherwise assume it is. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Status quo, plus the "Help" link from option B. The fact that this is not publicly recorded is more reason to remind people that they are not engaging in private communication. The "Help" link also can't hurt. EpicPupper 16:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article
The idea of automatically applying WP:Semiprotection to WP:Today's featured article (TFA) has been thrashed to death; see WP:PERENNIAL. I think the most recent discussion was in July 2020, at WT:Today's featured article/Archive 14. The key argument (for me at any rate) is that the last thing we want to do is discourage new editors.

Nevertheless, any time an article with a hint of controversy is TFA, it turns up at WP:ANI. For some recent examples, see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057 (27 January 2021), Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057 (28 January 2021), Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057 (30 January 2021) and WP:ANI (30 January 2021). They may also get posted at WP:AIV, which is less easy to search. I haven't seen reports of problems with WP:DYK articles.

During that last discussion, I suggested that TFA might be WP:Pending changes-protected for only so long as it is on the Main Page; and this idea seems to be new. IPs and unconfirmed editors would be able to post, even if their contributions didn't display immediately; and vandalism could be speedily dispatched where it belongs. A TFA's godaprents could be encouraged to help the regular pending changes patrollers. It would also solve the problem of working out when the vandalism occurred and who did it (a perennial problem with the small amount of vandalism I deal with - mostly involving links to DAB pages - which can be buried behind several recent good edits and require copy&paste from the last good version). It shouldn't be technically difficult to implement; it could be part of the script which adds articles to and removes them from the Main Page. Some other editors seem to like the idea, and it was suggested that I open a discussion here. (For the record - I'm in favour.) Narky Blert (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll note that one of the primary reasons for rejections of auto semi on TFA in the past is giving the impression that Wikipedia isn't so free to edit by having our most visible page be uneditable to the majority of the audience of TFA. Pending changes protection avoids this by still allowing users to make the edit, even if there is a slight delay in publishing it live, so it would be a decent compromise between unfettered access and maximum accessibility for our most visible page, and avoiding wasting of the community's time and potential risk of bad content being put up for all to see. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As a further thought - the protection template text should be tailormade for TFA, and welcoming. Narky Blert (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And another - WP:ANI (4 February 2021). Narky Blert (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another one, for which protection was declined - WP:ANI (5 February 2021). Narky Blert (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is every edit made to Cheadle Hulme during its day at TFA. I see a grand total of two IP vandals, one of whom made two edits and one of whom made one, while every other IP edit is constructive. If any admin had protected it under those circumstances, then unless there's something I've missed they'd have been instantly hauled off to Arbcom for admin abuse. &#8209; Iridescent 12:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, and have no comment on whether any particular page should or should not have been protected. Nevertheless, I have felt it right to post here every relevant ANI post since I opened this discussion, no matter whether they help or harm my proposal. All evidence is important towards reaching a consensus. (I have not monitored WP:AIV or WP:RFPP, which would be much more difficult.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another one - WP:ANI (8 February 2021). Narky Blert (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And another - WP:ANI (11 February 2021). Narky Blert (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI (12 February 2021). Narky Blert (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another - WP:ANI (14 February 2021). Narky Blert (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Today's installment - WP:ANI (15 February 2021). When this one got reported to ANI, it had only a couple of hours left on the main page. Cluebot and something like six registered editors had already dealt with edits to it; add in the protecting admin, and that's a lot of work.
 * I spotted something I hadn't noticed before - User:TFA Protector Bot had stuck pp-move on the article on 26 January, with automatic expiry at midnight 15 February. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For several years now, it has been normal for all upcoming TFAs (which don't already have move protection) to be given a short-term move prot, set to expire the moment the article stops being TFA. Until November 2013 it was a manual process; since then it has been tasked to TFA Protector Bot, see the BRFA. This prot is usually applied some time in advance (I believe soon after the calendar slot has been approved), see the bot's log; and the use of is supplementary to that. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know of that procedure (which was why I mentioned it), but it strikes me as an excellent one. Even a good-faith move of a reviewed and queued article would be disruptive, in the greater scheme of things. We don't want redirects on the main page.
 * Also - WP:ANI (19 February 2021). Narky Blert (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And another two - WP:ANI (19 February 2021) and WP:ANI (20 February 2021). On the second one, I count (among other reversions) seven WP:REVDELs while the article was on the main page. Narky Blert (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another - WP:ANI (23 February 2021; also mentioned by Levivich, below), which illustrates a problem. An admin WP:SILVERLOCKed the page for 3 days (which IMO is too much in both duration and level); a non-admin closer thought that the problem should have been posted at WP:RFPP not ANI. Narky Blert (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was I who closed that thread; in that case, there was already a duplicate at WP:RFPP, so having an ANI thread seemed redundant. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 04:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PC is widely agreed not to work/be practical on highly edited pages. That's why no one suggests it, probably. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is something that was proven during the PC backdoor attempt, by the Barack Obama and George W. Bush articles. The volume of edits was so high that the queue on those articles were perennially backlogged, and so it was and still is agreed that PC is not suitable for pages that would see high volumes of edits, something which would happen with TFA as a matter of course. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 16:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * At least the TFAs as considered in this discussion. I have seen some fairly quiet TFAs of late. --Izno (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I suspect the set of TFAs that would be suitably quiet for PC to work is almost identical to the set of TFAs where PC is not needed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As a supporter of the proposal, and an active PCR, I don't think this would be insurmountable for most TFAs. I note that the two given examples are highly political topics, one of whom was at the time President of the United States and the other of whom had been less than a full term ago. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm against preemptive protection of any kind, especially pending changes which makes more work for volunteers and is rarely useful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support some sort of protection it's unacceptable to have editors (very predictably!) vandalizing articles like The Holocaust in Slovakia while they're on the main page. This diminishes our reputation much more than any protection would do. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I should note that "highly active" is a fairly low boundary - PCR starts having real issues well before, say, editors would be frequently edit-conflicting. I'm also not sure how accurate a prediction of a TFA's likely edit rate we can do. Obviously we can predict the "very active" and "not likely to be edited much" buckets, but there'd be a large middle category that is tough to order. As such, I continue to believe PCR remains distinctly problematic for any TFA use that would actually warrant PCR. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not totally against this. The utility of pending changes is different from semi-protection: the goal is not to reduce the workload for administrators and recent change patrollers (as others have correctly pointed out above, pending changes effectively does the opposite), but rather, to prevent the vandalism from being seen by readers and thus possibly bringing the project into disrepute. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me right, for a brief period a few years ago, we actually did start preemptively putting PC protection on the TFA after an WP:AN discussion because of a particularly nasty LTA that would replace images on TFAs with extremely shocking ones. The traditional problems with PC on highly edited pages don't seem to be a big concern here because the protection would only last for one day, and most TFAs don't seem to be edited so frequently that large backlogs might become a problem. At the very least, I would probably support a trial period for this idea. Mz7 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this a little further, I think the relevant question would be how frequently vandalism remains undetected for longer than, say, a minute while on the TFA. Pending changes works best on articles where vandalism has a hard time getting reverted quickly, and now that I think about it, because the TFA already has a lot of eyes on it in general, it may be the case that most vandalism is already reverted within seconds, rendering the need for pending changes moot. Mz7 (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, TFA vandalism is rarely if ever reverted within seconds. I've heard averages around 10-15 minutes, which is enough to be problematic for those articles, especially with heavy or grotesque vandalism. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit histories of the articles I mentioned in the opening paragraph (a very small statistical sample): if ClueBot spots it, within seconds; if a human, 1-40 minutes (median 8). Narky Blert (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant question would be how frequently vandalism remains undetected for longer than, say, a minute while on the TFA This is the crucial question for me. If our goal is to prevent disruption to the reader, we need to know how much vandalism is currently disrupting readers. I don't think a trial would change our ability to look at that, we just need someone to crunch the numbers from the page history. It could also be crossed with the day's page hits to estimate the number of readers who actually saw the vandalism, e.g., this vandalism was up for 5 minutes, so with a total of 60 thousand page views that day---5 thousand people probably saw this instead of the article. In my experience it's as you describe with the added eyes bringing faster reversions, but knowing the average and other statistics would be useful and quite possibly change my mind. If PC protection really is a substantial benefit, I'd be willing to support its use on TFA. It at least allows users without accounts to edit, and if we craft a nice message as Narky suggests, it could minimize the potential newbie biting. So my main concern in this case is usefulness because I've rarely seen PC solve more problems than it caused. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (I guess the maths in your example isn't meant to be taken literally but 5 mins of 60,000 pageviews is about 209 views—5000 would be 60,000 per hour. A limitation of this approach is that vandalism lasts longer the less-viewed the page is, and the pageviews vary based on time zones in areas where most of our readers are from. But I think some API somewhere can give you hourly pageviews.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support pending changes protection as a trial: TFA is different from other highly-viewed pages in that there is very likely a highly active editor who is passionate about the article (the one who just promoted it to FA), and activity is limited to 24 hours (maybe the next few days as well, while it's still linked on the main page). I can't really speak for all such editors (I've only been that person once) but perhaps some would be able to look through all the changes at the very least after the dust has settled, and collect any of the changes which are productive. A counterargument is that TFAs are, well, featured articles, and so much less likely to have issues that new and unregistered users will be able to solve. But there are likely still small prose improvements that one might expect to be made in the TFA period. An alternative is maybe pre-emptively semi-protecting only some TFAs based on topic. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Few useful changes are made, vandalism is a serious problem not for the number of vandals but for the black eye we get for allowing it on the front page. Volume of changes we are talking about is not great. So this is an excellent use of PC. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support test, in my view, this is the ideal balance between preserving both the integrity of our "anyone can edit" mantra, and quality of our featured articles. I tend to agree with Hawkeye that "few useful changes are made"—to the point where the amount of vandalism or unhelpful edits vastly outnumbers the occasional random spelling fix (and any major edits/errors would better be discussed on the talk page anyways). But either way, this protection could address both the vandalism and occasionally helpful edits. Aza24 (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Would just like to reaffirm my support; when my Portrait of a Musician went to TFA a couple of days ago, there was a lot of vandalism, almost all of which could have been prevented by PC; the other proses fixes and edits were by users who would not have been restricted by PC. A test is certainly worth it. Aza24 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (nom) I agree that any change should be on a trial basis.
 * My idea for the template text is along the lines of: "Welcome to Today's featured article. It is an unfortunate fact that these articles attract vandals. Therefore, changes by new editors are reviewed by experienced editors before they show up for everyone to see. This usually takes only a few minutes. If you are here to be part of the community whose goal is to improve Wikipedia - Thank you, and happy editing! You might find Help:Editing a useful beginners' guide. If you are here only to disrupt - Be off with you!" Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Would prevent instant publication of toxic or copyrighted material on such highly visited articles. ~ HAL  333  02:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon notice I haven't explicitly said it here yet, support as one of the parties in the original conversation. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. PC protection generates significant amount of work for minimal benefit, and doesn't work on pages with a high volume of editing; those pages which attract enough vandalism to make protection worthwhile, are also going to be those pages on which PC won't work. PC also comes with significant additional drawbacks in addition to the maintenance backlog it generates; there's no way to add a summary when rejecting an edit, so when disapproving a good-faith but inappropriate edit one can't explain why in the edit summary; for BLP issues PC has little impact since it doesn't affect what Google scrapes (they pick up the most recent revision even if it's been unapproved); to approve/disapprove changes to an article at FA level often requires specialist knowledge of the topic, which the handful of people who work the Special:PendingChanges queue are unlikely to have; the whole proposal appears to be predicated on the idea that every, or at least most, FAs are going to be on peoples' watchlists, which just isn't the case. &#8209; Iridescent 08:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (Interesting to see you here -- I was literally just wondering what you would think of the proposition.) For what it's worth, "there's no way to add a summary when rejecting an edit, so when disapproving a good-faith but inappropriate edit one can't explain why in the edit summary" is incorrect -- the edit summary box is...huh, PC queue is empty as we speak, so my plan to take a screenshot for "right here" will have to wait, but it's prominently placed complete with giant "ADD AN EDIT SUMMARY IF WHAT YOU'RE REVERTING ISN'T BLATANT VANDALISM" bold text. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In lieu of screenshotting the edit summary box itself, here's a screenshot from my recent PCR contributions showing them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's alarming as a standalone thing to learn that Google is scraping the most recent revision on PCP pages—albeit I understood it to have a bit of a delay for general vandalism reasons (possibly it's just that it takes a few minutes for Google to scrape the article again). However, this is Google's problem, not ours. I don't want them having a single say in any of our decisions in any way. They need to change to suit us, not the other way around. Other search engines are available. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In around 2014, I was told that Google scraped a well-known social website every 20 minutes. Our goal as volunteer moderators was to take down heavy commercial spam within that time. IDK if that's a typical number, but our leader tried and failed to get them to increase it to 30. Narky Blert (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been wondering though (which is also why I'm voting here, for the first time at Village Pump), where would one go to suggest an entirely-new protection type? Because what if, instead of putting pending changes on TFA, there was instead a "delayed changes" protection? It would basically be pending changes, but with automatic approval after some set amount of time. Set the time to something a bit longer than the average length it's taken for vandalism to be reverted, and I'd bet it would drastically reduce the workload on heavy-vandalism days without contributing to a pending changes backlog. This would be protection for just TFA (a case of a page with high visibility/traffic for a short period of time). But since this would need to be created and isn't a matter of assigning an existing protection, it's more of a future-implementation kind of suggestion. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The only backlog this would generate in terms of PC is one page which would need to be checked regularly for the duration (and, well, PC isn't that large of a backlog, compared to some other places). And, well, while it might not stop everything, at least any vandalistic edit (which would need to be reverted anyway, PC or not) won't be prominently displayed to every person who gets there... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as a pending-changes reviewer, I think the added workload would be minimal compared to the benefits. With the number of eyes on the page, good changes will be accepted quickly, while bad ones won't be prominently linked from the main page. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - This strikes me as a reasonable compromise that both allows IPs to edit TFAs and combats vandalism. Put another way, it's the least restrictive means of effectively protecting our most prominent articles. (Protecting one article a day certainly won't overwhelm PC, and the article will be widely watchlisted anyway.) Let's at least give this scheme a try: I think it would be effective. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (nom) To repeat a point I made earlier, in case it might get lost. This idea has both carrot and stick. It would provide a means to speedily welcome new editors and to point them in the right directions. Experienced editors know where to look or to ask for help; newbies, by definition, don't. Narky Blert (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is about balancing Wikipedia's positive reputation as the encyclopedia 'anyone can edit', agains the potential negative reputation for vandalism and inaccuracies being introduced and not being caught. I think pending-changes protection is an excellent compromise, allowing people to edit, but preventing stupid nonsense from showing up on our most prominent article of the day. ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 14:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing to strong oppose after learning that FlaggedRevs (i.e. the module behind pending changes) is effectively abandoned, with nobody on the MediaWiki dev team having responsibility for it, and that it has various odd bugs (T275322, T275017) that seemingly aren't getting resolved. The last thing we want is weird MediaWiki bugs on display on TFA. ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 09:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as trial. I agree with RandomCanadian, a short period of time having pending changes protection isn't going to create much of a backlog and with so many eyes on TFA already.
 * Feature requests should be submitted at Phabricator. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing me to Phabricator, as I did not know about it beforehand. But my question isn't about "submitting" for a feature request, but suggesting one, to be discussed before requesting it. I see little point in requesting a brand-spankin' new feature without having a discussion about its merits, especially when feature requests appear to be made outside of WP (since Phabulator is merely an affiliated Wikimedia entity, and I had to create a new account just to see the feature request creation page). So where might I go to suggest the feature, for discussion? --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Iridescent, and also because of the general principle of using TFA to highlight the "anyone can edit" principle. Editing with a delay is not the same thing as editing with an immediate impact, and using PC on such a prominent page would harm recruitment. --Yair rand (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm in the knee-jerk oppose camp per Iridescent & Yair rand, but I can see the problem of adapting our processes as we evolve from "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit " to " the encyclopedia that anyone can edit ". If we want to use the TFA for recruitment then the edit must be visible (almost) immediately; more than 30s would, I think, take away that little burst of joy that addicted me to editing here. I believe one of the major problems that Wikipedia faces as it matures is erosion of the editor base as it becomes harder and harder to get a foot in the door as a new editor. Is there any evidence that newbies take up editing via the TFA? I've seen multiple new editors converted via ITN, but rarely other sections of the main page. My DYKs have occasionally had substantive or typo-fixing edits by redlinks or IPs who are clearly interested in the topic, and I've even very occasionally had comments of thanks or opprobrium from IPs. Personally I hate pending changes and hardly ever accept significant revisions because it puts the onus on me to put my weight behind them, and I know others have the same problem. Is there some bot-mediated mechanism that could immediately auto-accept anything that looked good faith and not obviously problematic? Could Cluebot be set to run on every TFA edit immediately? Espresso Addict (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly support trying something after seeing today's TFA, Margaret (singer), be ceaselessly vandalized, spawning yet another ANI thread. I think the work combatting vandalism at TFAs is greater than the work involved in protecting the article, and the detriment from vandalism at TFAs is greater than the detriment of not allowing everyone to instantly edit it. I'm not sure if it's PC or semi or something else, but Something Must Be Done. I'd support a trial of this or any type of protection. Or even a trial of both PC and semi, like an A/B test. What I strongly oppose is resigning ourselves to "well that's just how it is" and trying nothing. Strongly oppose trying nothing. Levivich harass/hound 22:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As it's a featured article, the cost-benefit calculation here is very different than most. Newcomers vandalize many articles but also make good edits to make up for that. For featured articles, the likelihood of a newcomer making a good, constructive edit is greatly reduced (based on low potential for improvement of the article as a featured one), while the fact that it is on the front page means that the amount of vandalism increases substantially. Personally, I support pending changes protection on all featured articles because of the diminished benefit a newcomer editing them can bring. Plenty of featured articles have significantly declined in quality over time as for a pretty much completed article it is much more likely for any edit by newcomers to be unhelpful. I think people are overestimating that satisfaction people get to see their change immediately; as long as they are aware of the pending changes situation, what matters most is the fact that your work is published at all, not the exact time. <b style="color: #fffb00"> Zoozaz1 </b>  talk   22:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Most recent TFAs follow a pattern similar to Oryzomys gorgasi, the TFA on 26 February. There were 62 edits on that day. Of those, 27 (roughly 44%) were from IP addresses. With one exception that I saw, all were vandalism. The ‘legitimate’ edits were almost all from established users, and most of those edits involved repairing the damage caused by vandals. The 'anyone-can-edit' principle is, at least from my perspective, the means and should be subordinate to the end of creating an encyclopedia by drawing upon collective knowledge.Venicescapes (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support; generally works fine on dewiki on highly-viewed pages. All articles are PC-protected on dewiki, leading to a long backlog,(7500 pending changes) but this doesn't seem to be a concern when the protection is limited to 24 hours and done selectively on pages that are very likely to be reviewed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per proposal; yes anyone should be able to edit, which they will be in this proposal, but Wikipedia should not once again fall victim to being called the website with inaccuracies anyone can add. waddie96 ★ (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I seem to remember suggesting this a few years ago in one of the periodic conversations about semi-protecting TFA. It would prevent vandalism from being shown live while still allowing IP editing.  It can get complicated with many edits, but it's worth a trial at any rate. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't like protection much, and I loathe pending changes. But perhaps it is time to move away from TFA as our poster child for "anyone can edit" and look for other ways to draw new editors in (TFA really isn't the best place for editing tests). I'd prefer semi to PC, but I won't oppose the proposal. —Kusma (t·c) 21:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Prefer semi over PC.  My first concern is with the reader, THEN the editor.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it will best serve readers. TFA gets a lot of traffic, and it's a disservice to readers if they encounter the article while vandalism is visible. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Begrudging support I think PC is bad, broken, and not hardly useful. I think semi is superior in effectively all cases. However, since we have decided against semi protection for FA's for years, I will settle with PC. I think it is ludicrous that we don't want to use semi on FA's. We have become stuck in a rules trap. It is written that protection should only be used after disruption is happening, so we wait until we see disruption. But we now hew to the letter of the law, not the spirit! The spirit is to prevent disruption. Sure, for most articles, we can't know when disruption will occur. But featured articles get vandalized like clockwork. Suddenly showing a page to 10 million extra people a day (including our LTAs!) makes it almost certain to get vandalized. A little dash of WP:IAR would save a great deal of time and frustration. TLDR: semi-protection would be superior, but I will settle for PC. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment and Oppose. The ability to instant create edits lies at the heart of this project. And I think many editor's very first foray into Wikipedia is through attempts at a main edit. It's our welcome mat. Seeing your change live instantly provides a thrill and confirms to newcomers instantly that their suspicions of how things work ("anybody can edit") were valid. Yes, this includes lots of immature vandal edits. But those tends to be stupid things like profanity inserted very visibly. But even this helps prompt good new edits to try to fix that. In other words, the "wild west" nature of the front page is an important way to engage new users which we need. And even some of the vandals turn into good editors as they mature. Using PC makes your first edits boring and people tend not to stick around for boring things. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose using PC for TFA, but support just about any other form of protection (semi, extended confirmed, etc). IMO, Pending Changes is an abomination that shouldn't be used at all, on any article, ever. It increases the amount of work needlessly and makes editors responsible for someone else' edits. It is also extremely confusing and difficult to understand as a feature, which for prospective TFA use makes it unacceptable. TFA will be viewed and edited by many inexperienced editors. We should not confuse the hell out of them with a monstrosity like Pending Changes. Just semi-protect TFA instead. Nsk92 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It looks as if the wind is blowing strongly in one direction on this one, but my take is that this seems like an overkill solution in search of a problem--which proposed problem I think is substantially minimal by the very nature of the context.  If TFAs somewhat gain additional traffice from IPs and neophyte editors, they are also gain increased scrutiny from a broad chunk of the community over the same 24 hour period that they are up on the main page.  Additionally, these articles tend to be slightly more robust and reflective of engaged editing than the average article.  In short, I can't see that adding pending changes will make all that substantial a difference to protecting the article against erroneous, bad-faith, or otherwise problematic edits over the course of its day of featured status.  Meanwhile, it seems absolutely certain to have an impact on what has traditionally been one of the Featured Article's perceived benefits: editor recruitment.


 * In fact, I would argue that having this process by which new editors are corralled into a different article each day (which article represents decent editorial standards) and that space becoming the first place in which they can appreciate the pleasure of contributing to the encyclopedia and enjoying the immediate feeling of seeing those changes go live, while simultaneously focusing community oversight on that article space in an organic fashion all sounds like precisely the balance we want to establish and why this is a "it's not broke, don't fix it" type of situation. Additionally, TFAs frequently benefit from the super-crowd-sourcing feature of the attention they get: the vast majority of even IP edits are beneficial, not deleterious, so why gum up the works by having a queue of (potentially overlapping) pending edits. And those queues don't always get addressed with alacrity: I'm a pending changes reviewer myself and have logged a fair amount of work in the area over recent years, and I can tell you that the queue being addressed is quite a variable thing with regard to both the subject matter of the article and the time of day. Lastly, this is just not the typical scenario (a n inherently problematic article) in which this form of protection is typically seen as most justified.


 * In short, and with respect to the proposers and supporters above, the cost-benefit analysis runs strongly counter to the proposal, as I see it. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 04:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's equally likely that a new editor attempting to edit a well established article (the TFA) will mess something up and get a notice or worse a stern scary looking warning on the their talk page. This also ignores that PC still allows the new editors to edit the article, while conveniently removing the incentive for at least some vandalism/LTAs. Ex. (had to dig for it a bit): TFA from May last year - the revdel'd edits are a well known LTA vandal (the same as for most of the articles on Today's featured article/May 2020... - I know, this discussion is not a new idea); after the PC protection the LTA stopped, while still allowing other non-AC edits (a fair bit were common vandalism, some were good faith but misguided; but anyway PC does not create the same issues as semi-protecting would). While PC might not be effective on some articles, or maybe even on most, on the TFA it would probably be the best of both worlds: not showing vandalism to our readers, while still allowing new editors to intervene. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Using PC on TFA is not actually a new idea. Myself and other admins have preemptively applied it many times to guard against long-term abuse, or in reaction to vandalism. These were emergency situations that necessitated stepping outside policy and lack of consensus, but each time to my knowledge we didn't see any of the problems others frequently cite when questing use of PC on TFA. Specifically, there are enough eyes and activity on this article that it doesn't have much detriment on the backlog. Shielding one of the most visible articles from defacement, while still allowing new users to contribute, is a win-win and frankly long overdue. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The argument that we shouldn't protect the most visible page doesn't hold water, because guess what's even more visible than TFA? The Main Page. Some compromise is necessary between the interests of readers and new editors. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 04:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I understand why semi protection is not used, but PC would definitely free a lot of heavy load from many anti-vandalism editors. Wretchskull (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes bugs
(Moving discussion out of archive.) Unfortunately, there are a ton of bugs affecting pending changes right now: autoconfirmed users having their edits held back for review erroneously, administrators not being able to set pending changes protection, and apparently the pending changes codebase is completely abandoned (no active developers who understand the code). See also the discussion at Village pump (technical). I wrote a comment in the discussion above expressing some support for this idea, but if we can't ensure the software reliability of pending changes, I'm afraid I'm now quite hesitant to support expanding it. Mz7 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As one of the more active PCRs and one of the original formulators of the proposal, I've been following the PC bug discourse with some interest. I haven't actually observed a ton of it in my work, so I wonder quite how big the problem is -- that is, what proportion of people who get false-positived go complain somewhere. (It's not just on VPs, I've seen it come up a few times at PERM.) If the majority of people who get it bring it up, it's pretty small; if this is just the tip of the iceberg, it might be a serious issue.
 * In terms of the proposal -- the thing that stands out to me is most of the oppose votes are saying "We shouldn't do this, we should semiprotect instead", not "We shouldn't do this, TFA should be status quo". I wonder how the vote distributions would stand out for the following two proposals:
 * "TFA goes under either pending changes or no protection, only two options, semiprotection is completely off the table and will never happen"
 * "TFA either goes under semi, PC, or none; rank the options by preference"
 * It'd be an interesting RfC either way. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I go through PC occasionally (when I'm not otherwise busy) and I don't encounter the bug too often (non-improvements and vandalism are, alas, more frequent), or when I do it's usually not too much of a hassle to just accept the change - if I have a particularly large amount of spare time I'll leave a notice about this to the affected editor. The fact that the code is unmaintained and apparently some form of a mess isn't a good sign, however, and well we'd have to weight whether the risk of further issues developping is less of an annoyance than potentially doing something about TFA LTAs... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I'm aware there's now a BRFA intended to address this issue. If that goes through, then I think I'll withdraw my hesitation. Mz7 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think hotfixes via a bot are untenable long-term. As more and more bugs crop up that can't be fixed in the extension, we can't keep using bots and other hacks to get around them locally. I'd personally like to see FlaggedRevs get picked up in the code stewardship review before expanding its use. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As the botop who filed that BRFA, I entirely agree that patching the issue via bot is not ideal, and I would also oppose any expansion of PCP until the issues are resolved. ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 09:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Why don't we scrap pending changes reviewer? and grant the rights to extended-confirmed? I mean, the point of PC is a basic flag to stop vandalism/obvious DE, right? It's akin to a less extreme semi-protection. So it doesn't really make sense, imo, to put it to a separate right. The right should be bundled into extendedconfirmed and the separate right removed I think (+ EC is a reasonable level of 'trust' against pure nonsense vandalism + they can already edit areas like Israel-Palestine). That would also fix this particular bug. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , honestly I'm not opposed. Back in 2018 I floated this idea on the idea lab village pump, and there was some mixed reception, and my interest in pursuing the change kind of just fizzled out. (Looking back I really wrote too much, heh. Concision was not/is not my strong suit.) Mz7 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * afaics there's two main objections there:
 * 1. That people would get a permission enabled without knowing what it does / directly asking for it. But this is true with autoconfirmed too: you get a bunch of buttons automatically and probably won't use many of them. And for adminship, too. You don't need to use a button just because you have access to it.
 * 2. That editors would game the system / increase edit count to gain it. I don't think this is true for a few reasons. 1) same could be said about the 'privilege' to edit in ARBPIA. 2) same could be said for pages currently autoconfirmed/ECP protected (gaming edits up means that you can now accept edit protected requests onto the page, and PCR is practically equivalent to edit protected except that it's directly supported by the software interface).
 * So neither objection really makes sense imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While we're at it why not scrap pending changes altogether? Is there any reason other than sunken costs to keep it, rather than use other forms of protection? I've often noticed that experiments on Wikipedia are hardly ever deemed to be failed, often because people are following that fallacy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The main advantage of Pending Changes from my point of view, is that it acts as a form of protection against vandalism on pages without blocking their ability of IP's to actually edit.  Asartea  Talk  undefined  Contribs  07:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Discourages new editors, who are what the main page is really all about (it's not like any of us make much use of it, right?). Arguably it's more discouraging and confusing than semi-protecting or full-protecting the page, since they'd be able to make edits and then they wouldn't have an effect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Trial duration
There is substantial support for a trial (which would demonstrate any technical problems with pending changes), but no discussion on the length of a trial. I think 1 month is a good duration for a trial. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 02:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fuck that. That that page even exists should tell you all you need to know. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 02:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware there are problems with Pending Changes, if you oppose using it for TFA you should be voting in the voting section. I'm not sure what a ten-year-old RFC against pending changes (when later RFCs allowed it) is supposed to tell me; the fact that an RFC existed ten years ago tells me virtually nothing.. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 02:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That RfC took place long after the original trial of PC was supposed to end. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 02:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to 1 month as the length for a trial. Mz7 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

A bot should create two redirects for all new Articles for Deletion listings.
For example, if  is created, a bot should create all of the following:


 * ("D" in "Deletion" capitalised)
 * ("Articles for Deletion" abbreviated)
 * (add nomination number to end of name if necessary)

It would alleviate capitalisation problems (in case of first) and make many links to nominations shorter (in case of the second). What do you think? DePlume (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The first thing doesn't seem like much of a problem, but gosh that second thing would be so convenient when pulling up related AfDs.. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nicer would be a mediawiki feature allowing a redirect to automatically redirect all subpages accordingly. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Solving the issue of subpage redirects in the software would be a much cleaner solution, and would also benefit other venues where this is an issue (WP:MFD and WP:SPI come to mind), rather than creating an extra two pages for every AfD nomination. Yesterday there were 98 nominations, creating 98 additional pages. A bot creating the proposed redirects would have created an additional 196. That's not a lot of overhead but it's not zero. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above^. ~ HAL  333  00:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, creating triple the number of pages for this task should only be with a very good reason, I'm not seeing what the overwhelming problem is here. — xaosflux  Talk 16:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Enterprisey/search-shortcuts exists that expands "WP:AFD/" in the search box to "WP:Articles for deletion/", which solves part of the problem in navigating to these pages easily. – SD0001  (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How about merging it with the MW interface? --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet another Enterprisey tool that makes life easier - thanks for mentioning this. That being said I agree that this should be trivial to implement in MW a feature to enable automatic expansion of project-defined shortcuts. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Shortcut: WP:NEGOTIATE
I propose to shortcut the Dispute_resolution section by using WP:NEGOTIATE new page. What do you think about that? Should we choose a better shortcut name like WP:RCDNEGOTIATE to narrow down the policy namespace? -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 15:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * there's no need to propose this here. You can just create the redirect. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 09:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Though, I think that might make more sense to redirect to Negotiation. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 09:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I was asking for opinion because I feel that NEGOTIATE is too general. But anyway. If someone challenges new page I will redirect him here. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 10:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Should IP files an Arbitration cases
Hello, i read the Arbitration/Requests/Case. In the article, all arbitration requests was done only by autoconfirmed users, which automatically bans IPs or unregistered users from filling the arbitration requests. In my opinion, this policy should be changed to allow IPs or unregistered users (unless their edits are bad faith) to filing arbitration requests, because there are many good faith IP edits, not assuming all IP edits as bad faith. For all users, should IPs be allowed to filling the request. 36.77.94.191 (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That way madness lies... ~King Lear   GenQuest  "scribble" 05:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging a couple of arbcom clerks ...will be quicker then reading the arbcom book... - are unregistered users actually barred from initiating arbitration policy wise?  If there are technical hurdles can they be overcome by methods such as contacting the clerks to open a request perhaps with a transcluded section (as Arbitration/Requests/Case is SPP)? —  xaosflux  Talk 10:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know of anywhere in policy where this is prohibited. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 02:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether they can, but they generally should not. They should start an ANI thread first, and if arbitration is necessary someone else can file the request. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 02:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The arbitration request pages have been semi-protected for over a decade. That doesn't mean unregistered users can't participate in arbitration (at least, I don't know of anything in either WP:ARBPOL or WP:ARBPROC that says so), it just recognises they're prime targets for vandals and sockpuppets, and that very few unregistered/unconfirmed accounts will have a legitimate reason to edit them. And the small number of long-term unregistered users who have been around long enough to get involved in a dispute requiring arbitration presumably have also been around long enough to know how to make an edit request if they need to. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And as some IP editors have dynamic IPs, it could be tricky to be sure if the same person is behind every IP involved. Doug Weller  talk 12:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)